English Reading Comprehension

The cynosure of the passage is the ________________.

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

The current phase or judicial intervention has often been termed judicial activism, but the Supreme Court has held the view that far from being an activist court, it has only tried to do what it should have done long ago. i.e., enforce the law. In the process if the corrupt come to grief or the executive is called to account for its acts of omission or commission, that is all to the good.

Because we have a written Constitution, the ultimate arbiter of whether laws have constitutional validity or whether the actions of the executive conform to the law will always be the courts. With this there can be no quarrel. When we look at the constitutional provisions for the establishment of the Supreme Court and its powers we find that the basic function of the courts is to adjudicate, which means to determine judicially in a matter in which there are conflicting opinions or adversaries in a case.

It is only Article 141 that confers on the Supreme Court a power which goes beyond adjudication and that is to declare a law that will be binding on all courts in India. The declaration of such a law can be through an interpretation of the existing law, or by a judgment that a particular law is ultra vires or by laying down guidelines of how courts will decide a matter where the law is silent or where there is a legal lacuna.

One example of this is a case which came before the then Chief Justice of India, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, relating to the quantum of compensation which should be paid to persons who had strayed on to an army firing range and sustained injury while trying to retrieve what they thought was an empty shell but which turned out to be live. Justice Bhagwati ruled that whereas there was no specific law governing such compensation, there were other –laws which lay down the guidelines of compensation to victims of motor accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, etc. He then fixed compensation at an amount more or less equivalent to what the law permitted in the case of an air accident. This judgement is now law for all courts.

That, by itself, does not mean that the power which vests in Parliament under Part V, chapter 2 of the Constitution to enact laws under lists I and 3 of the Seventh Schedule also vests in the Supreme Court under Article 141. Unless the court decides that the law itself is unconstitutional, it is bound by every law of Parliament and Stale Legislatures. This is the fine-tuning of separation of power in India between the legislature and the judiciary.

In all this where does the executive fit in? Parts V and VI of the Constitution make, a specific provision for the Union and the State executive that the executive power of the Union vests in the President, to be exercised by officers subordinate to him, and the executive power of each State vests in the Governor, to be exercised by officers subordinate to him. If we take legislation to be the responsibility of the legislatures and adjudication to be that of the judiciary, then the residuary function of implementing the laws and acting according to the policy of the Government is the responsibility of the executive. This is not a delegated or subordinate function - it is the constitutional responsibility of the executive.

Under Article 73 the Union has executive powers in all matters with respect to which Parliament has the power to make laws, just as under Article 162 the executive power of the State extends to all matters which fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the State Legislature. How the Government will exercise this executive power is determined by rules framed under Articles 77 and 166.

In a parliamentary democracy, because the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the legislature, it is the executive that takes the lead in legislation. Unless the executive supports a particular Bill there is almost no chance of its being enacted into law because it would not muster enough support in the House. It is the executive. Therefore, this is the initiator of legislature. It is the executive which prepares the annual statement of estimated receipts and expenditure under Articles 112 and 202 respectively, popularly known as the budget, and then pilots the discussion on grants, the Appropriation Bill, etc. which gives the Government the legislative sanction for incurring expenditure. It also places before Parliament appropriate proposals for taxation.

Just as there is a finely tuned balance between the legislature and the judiciary the executive also is subject to constitutional checks and balances. The biggest check is law itself and if any member of the executive violates it he is liable for action before a court of law. Then there is the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, whereby the executive can be directed to desist from a particular course of action or, conversely, directed to perform a particular function. The legislature, to whom the Ministers are responsible, can call the Government to account through discussions, resolutions, adjournment motions, budget debates, questions, and no-confidence motions. If need be the legislature can even oust the Government. However, these checks and balances by themselves do not give the other organs of the State - the legislature and the judiciary - the power to interfere in the working of the executive or to place it in a subordinate position.

All matters relating to governance being the responsibility of the executive, there is no authority in India that can interfere with its day-to-day working. Let me try and illustrate this point. The postings and transfers of officers fall within the exclusive purview of the executive.

Provided that there is no arbitrariness in this, the courts cannot interfere. This means that the courts cannot decide that an extension should be given to the Director of CBI, that his subordinate officers should bypass him in an investigation or that a particular officer should be transferred to a particular place.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been doing in a number of cases and a weak and pusillanimous Government has been surrendering in every case. The investigation of an offence may lead to a judicial process, but provided that the investigation is done according to law, the investigating agency is certainly within the supervisory control of the executive.

For the courts to order that the Government will not exercise its power of supervision and direction under Section 4 of the Police Act is an undue interference. For the Government to direct that before an investigation is undertaken into a particular case prior approval should be sought is perfectly valid, unless the law prohibits it. Nowhere in the world is the power of the police to investigate unfettered, except in a dictatorship, and the power to supervise, direct and control the police must vest in the executive. The courts may intervene only if the Government uses its power arbitrarily.

The executive has every right to decide how it will dispose of public property, provided that this is done according to a predetermined policy, clearly enunciated rules and in the public interest. Certainly it cannot be done to favour individuals or to cause pecuniary loss to the State.

When Ravi Shankar Shukla was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the capital shifted from Nagpur to Bhopal, he ordered the construction of several thousand residential units for Government servants. An objection was raised in the Vidhan Sabha to the effect that the work was awarded to a consortium without inviting tenders. The Chief Minister stated that there was paucity of time, that he had ordered the sanction of the work and its award to the consortium and that no officer was to blame.

Seven years later one of his successors, D. P. Mishra, made a similar statement in the legislature when an objection was raised about resettling 25,000 East Pakistan refugees in a district, for which purpose only seven days were given to the local officials to prepare the camps. As the person in charge, I had invited no tenders but had completed the work in time. The Chief Minister fully supported me and no further questions were asked.

What, then, is the role of the executive in a democracy? First, foremost, it is to govern, to provide governance and to implement the provisions of the Constitution and the law. For that you need a political head of the executive who, like D. P. Mishra, could say "I ordered it and so it has been done". The present lot who masquerade as ministers neither have the capacity to govern, nor have the courage. Between them they have reduced our executive to a position of impotence and subordination.

How many different articles of the Indian constitution have been cited in the passage?

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

The current phase or judicial intervention has often been termed judicial activism, but the Supreme Court has held the view that far from being an activist court, it has only tried to do what it should have done long ago. i.e., enforce the law. In the process if the corrupt come to grief or the executive is called to account for its acts of omission or commission, that is all to the good.

Because we have a written Constitution, the ultimate arbiter of whether laws have constitutional validity or whether the actions of the executive conform to the law will always be the courts. With this there can be no quarrel. When we look at the constitutional provisions for the establishment of the Supreme Court and its powers we find that the basic function of the courts is to adjudicate, which means to determine judicially in a matter in which there are conflicting opinions or adversaries in a case.

It is only Article 141 that confers on the Supreme Court a power which goes beyond adjudication and that is to declare a law that will be binding on all courts in India. The declaration of such a law can be through an interpretation of the existing law, or by a judgment that a particular law is ultra vires or by laying down guidelines of how courts will decide a matter where the law is silent or where there is a legal lacuna.

One example of this is a case which came before the then Chief Justice of India, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, relating to the quantum of compensation which should be paid to persons who had strayed on to an army firing range and sustained injury while trying to retrieve what they thought was an empty shell but which turned out to be live. Justice Bhagwati ruled that whereas there was no specific law governing such compensation, there were other –laws which lay down the guidelines of compensation to victims of motor accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, etc. He then fixed compensation at an amount more or less equivalent to what the law permitted in the case of an air accident. This judgement is now law for all courts.

That, by itself, does not mean that the power which vests in Parliament under Part V, chapter 2 of the Constitution to enact laws under lists I and 3 of the Seventh Schedule also vests in the Supreme Court under Article 141. Unless the court decides that the law itself is unconstitutional, it is bound by every law of Parliament and Stale Legislatures. This is the fine-tuning of separation of power in India between the legislature and the judiciary.

In all this where does the executive fit in? Parts V and VI of the Constitution make, a specific provision for the Union and the State executive that the executive power of the Union vests in the President, to be exercised by officers subordinate to him, and the executive power of each State vests in the Governor, to be exercised by officers subordinate to him. If we take legislation to be the responsibility of the legislatures and adjudication to be that of the judiciary, then the residuary function of implementing the laws and acting according to the policy of the Government is the responsibility of the executive. This is not a delegated or subordinate function - it is the constitutional responsibility of the executive.

Under Article 73 the Union has executive powers in all matters with respect to which Parliament has the power to make laws, just as under Article 162 the executive power of the State extends to all matters which fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the State Legislature. How the Government will exercise this executive power is determined by rules framed under Articles 77 and 166.

In a parliamentary democracy, because the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the legislature, it is the executive that takes the lead in legislation. Unless the executive supports a particular Bill there is almost no chance of its being enacted into law because it would not muster enough support in the House. It is the executive. Therefore, this is the initiator of legislature. It is the executive which prepares the annual statement of estimated receipts and expenditure under Articles 112 and 202 respectively, popularly known as the budget, and then pilots the discussion on grants, the Appropriation Bill, etc. which gives the Government the legislative sanction for incurring expenditure. It also places before Parliament appropriate proposals for taxation.

Just as there is a finely tuned balance between the legislature and the judiciary the executive also is subject to constitutional checks and balances. The biggest check is law itself and if any member of the executive violates it he is liable for action before a court of law. Then there is the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, whereby the executive can be directed to desist from a particular course of action or, conversely, directed to perform a particular function. The legislature, to whom the Ministers are responsible, can call the Government to account through discussions, resolutions, adjournment motions, budget debates, questions, and no-confidence motions. If need be the legislature can even oust the Government. However, these checks and balances by themselves do not give the other organs of the State - the legislature and the judiciary - the power to interfere in the working of the executive or to place it in a subordinate position.

All matters relating to governance being the responsibility of the executive, there is no authority in India that can interfere with its day-to-day working. Let me try and illustrate this point. The postings and transfers of officers fall within the exclusive purview of the executive.

Provided that there is no arbitrariness in this, the courts cannot interfere. This means that the courts cannot decide that an extension should be given to the Director of CBI, that his subordinate officers should bypass him in an investigation or that a particular officer should be transferred to a particular place.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been doing in a number of cases and a weak and pusillanimous Government has been surrendering in every case. The investigation of an offence may lead to a judicial process, but provided that the investigation is done according to law, the investigating agency is certainly within the supervisory control of the executive.

For the courts to order that the Government will not exercise its power of supervision and direction under Section 4 of the Police Act is an undue interference. For the Government to direct that before an investigation is undertaken into a particular case prior approval should be sought is perfectly valid, unless the law prohibits it. Nowhere in the world is the power of the police to investigate unfettered, except in a dictatorship, and the power to supervise, direct and control the police must vest in the executive. The courts may intervene only if the Government uses its power arbitrarily.

The executive has every right to decide how it will dispose of public property, provided that this is done according to a predetermined policy, clearly enunciated rules and in the public interest. Certainly it cannot be done to favour individuals or to cause pecuniary loss to the State.

When Ravi Shankar Shukla was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the capital shifted from Nagpur to Bhopal, he ordered the construction of several thousand residential units for Government servants. An objection was raised in the Vidhan Sabha to the effect that the work was awarded to a consortium without inviting tenders. The Chief Minister stated that there was paucity of time, that he had ordered the sanction of the work and its award to the consortium and that no officer was to blame.

Seven years later one of his successors, D. P. Mishra, made a similar statement in the legislature when an objection was raised about resettling 25,000 East Pakistan refugees in a district, for which purpose only seven days were given to the local officials to prepare the camps. As the person in charge, I had invited no tenders but had completed the work in time. The Chief Minister fully supported me and no further questions were asked.

What, then, is the role of the executive in a democracy? First, foremost, it is to govern, to provide governance and to implement the provisions of the Constitution and the law. For that you need a political head of the executive who, like D. P. Mishra, could say "I ordered it and so it has been done". The present lot who masquerade as ministers neither have the capacity to govern, nor have the courage. Between them they have reduced our executive to a position of impotence and subordination.

What is the primary purpose of the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
The broad consensus that emerged at the Inter–State Council meeting over what is arguably the Constitution's most contentious provision — Article 356 — is a most welcome thing. The spirit of cooperative federalism has raised the hope of a constitutional amendment that will build safeguards into this emergency provision to prevent its misuse. The Union Law Minister, Arun Jaitley's press briefing suggested that these safeguards will incorporate the essence of the Supreme Court's landmark 1994 judgment in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case and include recommendations made by bodies such as the Sarkaria Commission and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). Article 356 gives the Centre the power to take over the functions of a State Government in the event of a failure of the constitutional machinery in that State. However, the history of its use clearly reveals that it was invoked more often to fix politically inconvenient State Governments, precipitate fresh elections and for other reasons that have no relevance to the purpose of the Article.

In recent years, the judgment in the Bommai case has served as a salutary check — and indeed bar — against such misuse. The Court's ruling that the Centre cannot dissolve State legislatures unless the proclamation under Article 356 (1) is approved by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha has served as an effective restraint during a period when no party or combination of parties has enjoyed a majority in both Houses of Parliament. The Court also held that any such proclamation is open to judicial review to the extent of examining whether it was issued on the basis of relevant material or whether it was a mala fideexercise of power. This pronouncement has deterred the use of the Article for narrow, political ends. Between 1950 and 1994, when the Bommai judgment was delivered, Article 356 was used on more than 90 occasions. In many cases, State Governments were dismissed even when they enjoyed a majority in the Assembly and in other cases, without being given an opportunity to prove their strength on the floor of the House. Instances of such misuse have all but vanished in recent years, but it is important to strengthen and institutionalize the safeguards through a constitutional amendment.

Among other things, such an amendment must ensure that, if used at all, the recourse to Article 356 must be a last resort — one that is embraced after exhausting the options provided by other Articles in the Constitution such as 256, 257 and, more importantly, 355. Other measures, such as the condition that the Centre must formally communicate to a State the facts and reasons for proposing to bring it under President's Rule and give the State an opportunity to reply, are essentially intended to ensure that the proposed use of Article 356 is based on a rigorous method. Mr. Jaitley's suggestion that the Governor's report recommending President's Rule should be in the nature of a "speaking order" is virtually identical to the recommendation made by the NCRWC. This was that such a report should contain "a precise and clear statement of all the material facts and grounds, on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself as to the existence or otherwise of the situation contemplated in Article 356." Like some other emergency provisions in the Constitution, Article 356 was introduced as an extraordinary safeguard, not something that is invoked in non–extreme circumstances. During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar even hoped it would be a "dead letter," something that would "never be called into operation." The purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment should be to ensure that this democratic vision of cooperative federalism comes true, however late in the day.

The broad consensus that emerged at the Inter–State Council meeting over what is arguably the Constitution's most contentious provision — Article 356 — is a most welcome thing. The spirit of cooperative federalism has raised the hope of a constitutional amendment that will build safeguards into this emergency provision to prevent its misuse. The Union Law Minister, Arun Jaitley's press briefing suggested that these safeguards will incorporate the essence of the Supreme Court's landmark 1994 judgment in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case and include recommendations made by bodies such as the Sarkaria Commission and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). Article 356 gives the Centre the power to take over the functions of a State Government in the event of a failure of the constitutional machinery in that State. However, the history of its use clearly reveals that it was invoked more often to fix politically inconvenient State Governments, precipitate fresh elections and for other reasons that have no relevance to the purpose of the Article.

In recent years, the judgment in the Bommai case has served as a salutary check — and indeed bar — against such misuse. The Court's ruling that the Centre cannot dissolve State legislatures unless the proclamation under Article 356 (1) is approved by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha has served as an effective restraint during a period when no party or combination of parties has enjoyed a majority in both Houses of Parliament. The Court also held that any such proclamation is open to judicial review to the extent of examining whether it was issued on the basis of relevant material or whether it was a mala fideexercise of power. This pronouncement has deterred the use of the Article for narrow, political ends. Between 1950 and 1994, when the Bommai judgment was delivered, Article 356 was used on more than 90 occasions. In many cases, State Governments were dismissed even when they enjoyed a majority in the Assembly and in other cases, without being given an opportunity to prove their strength on the floor of the House. Instances of such misuse have all but vanished in recent years, but it is important to strengthen and institutionalize the safeguards through a constitutional amendment.

Among other things, such an amendment must ensure that, if used at all, the recourse to Article 356 must be a last resort — one that is embraced after exhausting the options provided by other Articles in the Constitution such as 256, 257 and, more importantly, 355. Other measures, such as the condition that the Centre must formally communicate to a State the facts and reasons for proposing to bring it under President's Rule and give the State an opportunity to reply, are essentially intended to ensure that the proposed use of Article 356 is based on a rigorous method. Mr. Jaitley's suggestion that the Governor's report recommending President's Rule should be in the nature of a "speaking order" is virtually identical to the recommendation made by the NCRWC. This was that such a report should contain "a precise and clear statement of all the material facts and grounds, on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself as to the existence or otherwise of the situation contemplated in Article 356." Like some other emergency provisions in the Constitution, Article 356 was introduced as an extraordinary safeguard, not something that is invoked in non–extreme circumstances. During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar even hoped it would be a "dead letter," something that would "never be called into operation." The purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment should be to ensure that this democratic vision of cooperative federalism comes true, however late in the day.

What is the main purpose of the passage?

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

Mother Teresa will soon become a saint. But this celebration of the divine in a human being has turned out to be as good a moment as any to fight about all the worldly things that usually get fought about in the Balkans: namely, religion, ethnicity and history. The conflict centres on an attempt, so far unsuccessful, to donate a statue of Mother Teresa to the city of Rome. It is a simple enough dispute on one level, but on another, reflects the strains that have made it so hard to stitch together Balkan societies. The tale begins with a solitary fact that no one disputes: Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, who became the world's most famous Roman Catholic missionary, universally known as Mother Teresa, was born in August 1910 in Skopje. (As for the exact date, some say she was born on Aug. 26, others Aug. 27.) The city was then an especially mixed corner of the Ottoman Empire, home to Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Gypsies, Jews, Vlachs and Albanians, which is what Mother Teresa always said she was.

After Mother Teresa's death in 1997, one of Macedonia's most famous artists, Tome Serafimovski, fashioned a 9–ft bronze statue of her that now stands in downtown Skopje. As the Vatican moved to make her a saint, Mr. Serafimovski decided to donate a copy to Rome. Its delivery was to coincide with her expected beatification, the last step before sainthood, in October. But then last month, an Albanian newspaper in Skopje, Fakti, carried a sensational scoop: the statue, it reported from Italy, was to have an inscription identifying her as "a Macedonian daughter." Albanian leaders were outraged. This was an attempt, they said, by the Macedonians to claim Mother Teresa as one of their own. The inscription, one Albanian political party charged, "undermines the Albanian national identity and represents usurpation of Mother Teresa's origin." Ethnic Albanians make up perhaps a quarter, though some say a third or more, of Macedonia's 2 million people. (No one knows for certain and, like much else, it is argued over bitterly.) The largest national group here are often considered Slavs. But many Macedonians contend hotly that they are in fact not Slavs, but have descended from ancient Macedonians like Alexander the Great. Whatever their descent, they fought a brief conflict with ethnic Albanians seeking greater political rights in 2001.

Mother Teresa has now emerged as yet another strain in this larger tug of war. What complicates matters further is that she was Roman Catholic, while most Albanians are Muslim, and this has opened a crack for speculation about Mother Teresa's actual ethnic roots. Jasmina Mironski, a prominent Macedonian journalist who has written two books on Mother Teresa, says there is no doubt that Mother Teresa's own mother, Dranafila Bernaj, was an ethnic Albanian. But her father, Nikola Bojaxhiu, was "the tricky combination." She says the "u" that ends his name made him more likely a Vlach, a non–Slavic Orthodox people also called Walachians. Plus, she said, Mother Teresa "didn't speak Albanian, that's for sure. She only knew five words of Albanian." Moreover, her brother's name was Lazar, the name of Serbia's most famous prince. This is heresy to Albanians, who say they have been repeatedly persecuted by Serbs. The debate has leached out from Macedonia to intellectuals in Albania proper, who in July wrote in anger to the Mayor of Rome urging him to resist the effort "to usurp the figure and deeds of Mother Teresa," as well as to Internet chat rooms read by Macedonians around the world. All sides say, naturally, that their only interest is to see Mother Teresa's life celebrated, but with the maximum truth possible.

With the argument still raging, Mayor Risto Penov of Skopje, who is overseeing the donation of the statue, said there was never a plan for an inscription that mentioned a "Macedonian daughter." He said the idea is now the same as it always was, for an inscription that reads simply: "Born Skopje 26 August 1910. Died Calcutta 5 September 1997." "Now we have a person who can put us together again — and we're dividing ourselves," he said. But the editors at Fakti insist their report was right.

Mr. Serafimovski said he has had it with all the bickering. No statue will be donated, he said, until the issue was resolved. He opposes anything that even hints that Mother Teresa was Macedonian (even if he believes her father was Vlach). At Mother Teresa's own order in Skopje, yet another view seemed to prevail about this woman who left Skopje at the age of 18. An Italian nun who declined to be named said that Mother Teresa unquestionably spoke Albanian, among other languages, but felt the strongest affinity with another part of the world entirely.

"Most of her life, she spent in Calcutta," she declared. "She felt more Indian than any other citizenship."— New York Times

The passage does not answer which one of the following questions?

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

Mother Teresa will soon become a saint. But this celebration of the divine in a human being has turned out to be as good a moment as any to fight about all the worldly things that usually get fought about in the Balkans: namely, religion, ethnicity and history. The conflict centres on an attempt, so far unsuccessful, to donate a statue of Mother Teresa to the city of Rome. It is a simple enough dispute on one level, but on another, reflects the strains that have made it so hard to stitch together Balkan societies. The tale begins with a solitary fact that no one disputes: Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, who became the world's most famous Roman Catholic missionary, universally known as Mother Teresa, was born in August 1910 in Skopje. (As for the exact date, some say she was born on Aug. 26, others Aug. 27.) The city was then an especially mixed corner of the Ottoman Empire, home to Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Gypsies, Jews, Vlachs and Albanians, which is what Mother Teresa always said she was.

After Mother Teresa's death in 1997, one of Macedonia's most famous artists, Tome Serafimovski, fashioned a 9–ft bronze statue of her that now stands in downtown Skopje. As the Vatican moved to make her a saint, Mr. Serafimovski decided to donate a copy to Rome. Its delivery was to coincide with her expected beatification, the last step before sainthood, in October. But then last month, an Albanian newspaper in Skopje, Fakti, carried a sensational scoop: the statue, it reported from Italy, was to have an inscription identifying her as "a Macedonian daughter." Albanian leaders were outraged. This was an attempt, they said, by the Macedonians to claim Mother Teresa as one of their own. The inscription, one Albanian political party charged, "undermines the Albanian national identity and represents usurpation of Mother Teresa's origin." Ethnic Albanians make up perhaps a quarter, though some say a third or more, of Macedonia's 2 million people. (No one knows for certain and, like much else, it is argued over bitterly.) The largest national group here are often considered Slavs. But many Macedonians contend hotly that they are in fact not Slavs, but have descended from ancient Macedonians like Alexander the Great. Whatever their descent, they fought a brief conflict with ethnic Albanians seeking greater political rights in 2001.

Mother Teresa has now emerged as yet another strain in this larger tug of war. What complicates matters further is that she was Roman Catholic, while most Albanians are Muslim, and this has opened a crack for speculation about Mother Teresa's actual ethnic roots. Jasmina Mironski, a prominent Macedonian journalist who has written two books on Mother Teresa, says there is no doubt that Mother Teresa's own mother, Dranafila Bernaj, was an ethnic Albanian. But her father, Nikola Bojaxhiu, was "the tricky combination." She says the "u" that ends his name made him more likely a Vlach, a non–Slavic Orthodox people also called Walachians. Plus, she said, Mother Teresa "didn't speak Albanian, that's for sure. She only knew five words of Albanian." Moreover, her brother's name was Lazar, the name of Serbia's most famous prince. This is heresy to Albanians, who say they have been repeatedly persecuted by Serbs. The debate has leached out from Macedonia to intellectuals in Albania proper, who in July wrote in anger to the Mayor of Rome urging him to resist the effort "to usurp the figure and deeds of Mother Teresa," as well as to Internet chat rooms read by Macedonians around the world. All sides say, naturally, that their only interest is to see Mother Teresa's life celebrated, but with the maximum truth possible.

With the argument still raging, Mayor Risto Penov of Skopje, who is overseeing the donation of the statue, said there was never a plan for an inscription that mentioned a "Macedonian daughter." He said the idea is now the same as it always was, for an inscription that reads simply: "Born Skopje 26 August 1910. Died Calcutta 5 September 1997." "Now we have a person who can put us together again — and we're dividing ourselves," he said. But the editors at Fakti insist their report was right.

Mr. Serafimovski said he has had it with all the bickering. No statue will be donated, he said, until the issue was resolved. He opposes anything that even hints that Mother Teresa was Macedonian (even if he believes her father was Vlach). At Mother Teresa's own order in Skopje, yet another view seemed to prevail about this woman who left Skopje at the age of 18. An Italian nun who declined to be named said that Mother Teresa unquestionably spoke Albanian, among other languages, but felt the strongest affinity with another part of the world entirely.

"Most of her life, she spent in Calcutta," she declared. "She felt more Indian than any other citizenship."— New York Times

It is reasonable to infer from the passage that Mrs. Sennett asked, ''Are those children making too much noise?'' because Mrs. Sennett _________.

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

What is the main insight suggested by the conversation given in the passage?

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

Considering the events of the entire passage, it is most reasonable to infer that Mrs. Sennett calls the children bad because she ________.

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

'Familiarity breeds contempt'. In the passage an illustration of this proverb can be found in the phrase __________.

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

Central and South America have some of the world’s most unique species of wildlife. Perhaps, some are more familiar than others. Central and South America has many different groups of species, which include: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. These groups of animals need to live in specific types of climates and habitats in order to ensure their survivorship.

South America is the home to some of the strangest, some of the loveliest and some of the most horrifying animals in the world. There can be few creatures more improbable than the sloth which spends its life in a permanent state of mute slow motion, hanging upside down in the tall forest trees: few more bizarre than the giant ant eater of the Savannahs, its tail enlarged into a shaggy banner and its jaws elongated into a curved and toothless tube.  On the other hand, beautiful birds are so common as to become almost unremarkable. Gaudy macaws flap through the forest, their splendid plumage contrasting incongruously with their harsh cries; and humming–birds, like tiny jewels, flit from flower to flower sipping nectar, their iridescent feathers flashing the colors of the rainbow as they fly.

The Amazonian rain forest, in Brazil alone, is the largest rain forest in the world. Many species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds occupy the canopy of this magnificent rain forest. The iguana lives in the trees high above from the ground. It has flattened sides and a long, strong tail, which gives it balance and stability when it leaps. It also has clawed feet, which allows the iguana to grip branches.

The poison dart frog is a tree frog that secretes poison when it gets attacked. Even a small amount of the toxin can be lethal to humans. Today, South American Indians use the poison to tip their arrowheads before hunting.

Many of the South American animals inspire the fascination which comes from revulsion.  Shoals of cannibal fish infest the rivers waiting to rip the flesh from any animal which tumbles among them, and vampire bats, a legend in Europe but a grim reality in South America, fly out at night from their roosts in the forests to suck blood from cows and men.

The overall tone of the passage is _________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Laws directly tell us how to behave (or not to behave) under various specific circumstances and prescribe remedies or punishments for individuals who do not comply with the law. It can be defined as a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Legal principles are often derived from ethical ones, but legal principles deal more with the practical regulation of morality, or behaviours and activities. Additionally many legal principles deal with the inadequacies and imperfections in human nature, and the less than ideal behaviours of individuals or groups. Legal practices are also affected more by historical precedent, matters of definition, issues related to detectability and enforceability and evolution of new circumstances than are ethical ones.

Law is also defined as a body of enacted or customary rules recognized by a community as binding. The law of the Medes and the Persians were regarded as unalterable. While in ancient times the king laid down the law and the people implicitly obeyed him, in modern times laws are made by legislatures, popularly elected or partially nominated. These laws, whatever their source, are binding injunctions; if they were not binding and if their compliance with them were not obligatory, they would not be laws but mere wishes which could be treated as optional. It is the element of compulsion that distinguishes a law from an ordinary directive or expression of desire. Laws enacted by legislatures have also to be distinguished from laws of nature that indicates regularity and invariable sequence between specified conditions and specified phenomena.

All man–made laws are designed to regulate human conduct in the interest of society. In absence of such rules each person would regard himself free to do what he likes, regardless of impact of his actions on others' corresponding right of freedom of action. In fact, the very existence of society would be endangered if there were no universally recognized laws. A lawless society would mean endless confusion, possibly a reign of terror, and might result in a terrible mess where the only effective law of the jungle. Before regular laws were enacted and enforced, might was right: the physically stronger individual dominated the set–up and the weak person had perforce to surrender to the wishes of the might one or get destroyed. Laws thus enforce justice; provide equal rights and opportunities to everyone, weak or strong, male or female, rich or poor.

Considering how Mrs. Sennett is portrayed in the passage, it is most reasonable to infer that the word ravaged, as it is used, most nearly means that her face reveals _______.

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

A shoal of fish can be substituted by ________.

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

Central and South America have some of the world’s most unique species of wildlife. Perhaps, some are more familiar than others. Central and South America has many different groups of species, which include: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. These groups of animals need to live in specific types of climates and habitats in order to ensure their survivorship.

South America is the home to some of the strangest, some of the loveliest and some of the most horrifying animals in the world. There can be few creatures more improbable than the sloth which spends its life in a permanent state of mute slow motion, hanging upside down in the tall forest trees: few more bizarre than the giant ant eater of the Savannahs, its tail enlarged into a shaggy banner and its jaws elongated into a curved and toothless tube.  On the other hand, beautiful birds are so common as to become almost unremarkable. Gaudy macaws flap through the forest, their splendid plumage contrasting incongruously with their harsh cries; and humming–birds, like tiny jewels, flit from flower to flower sipping nectar, their iridescent feathers flashing the colors of the rainbow as they fly.

The Amazonian rain forest, in Brazil alone, is the largest rain forest in the world. Many species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds occupy the canopy of this magnificent rain forest. The iguana lives in the trees high above from the ground. It has flattened sides and a long, strong tail, which gives it balance and stability when it leaps. It also has clawed feet, which allows the iguana to grip branches.

The poison dart frog is a tree frog that secretes poison when it gets attacked. Even a small amount of the toxin can be lethal to humans. Today, South American Indians use the poison to tip their arrowheads before hunting.

Many of the South American animals inspire the fascination which comes from revulsion.  Shoals of cannibal fish infest the rivers waiting to rip the flesh from any animal which tumbles among them, and vampire bats, a legend in Europe but a grim reality in South America, fly out at night from their roosts in the forests to suck blood from cows and men.

The details and events in the passage suggest that the friendship between the narrator and Mrs. Sennett would most accurately be described as ________.

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

Given the evidence provided throughout the passage, the children probably silently mouth the word no because ________

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

Outside, the rain continued to run down the screened windows of Mrs. Sennett's little Cape Cod cottage. The long weeds and grass that composed the front yard dripped against the blurred background of the bay, where the water was almost the color of the grass. Mrs. Sennett's five charges were vigorously playing house in the dining room. (In the wintertime, Mrs. Sennett was housekeeper for Mr. Curley, in Boston, and during the summers the Curley children boarded with her on the Cape.)

My expression must have changed. Are those children making too much noise? Mrs. Sennett demanded, a sort of wave going over her that might mark the beginning of her getting up out of her chair. I shook my head in no, and gave her a little push on the shoulder to keep her seated. Mrs. Sennett was almost stone–deaf and had been for a long time, but she could read lips. You could talk to her without making any sound yourself, if you wanted to, and she more than kept up her side of the conversation in a loud, rusty voice that dropped weirdly every now and then into a whisper. She adored talking.

To look at Mrs. Sennett made me think of eighteenth–century England and its literary figures. Her hair must have been sadly thin, because she always wore, indoors and out, either a hat or a sort of turban, and sometimes she wore both. The rims of her eyes were dark; she looked very ill.

Mrs. Sennett and I continued talking. She said she really didn't think she'd stay with the children another winter. Their father wanted her to, but it was too much for her. She wanted to stay right here in the cottage. The afternoon was getting along, and I finally left because I knew that at four o'clock Mrs. Sennett's sit down was over and she started to get supper. At six o'clock, from my nearby cottage, I saw Theresa coming through the rain with a shawl over her head. She was bringing me a six–inch–square piece of spice cake, still hot from the oven and kept warm between two soup plates.

A few days later I learned from the twins, who brought over gifts of firewood and blackberries, that their father was coming the next morning, bringing their aunt and her husband and their cousin. Mrs. Sennett had promised to take them all on a picnic at the pond some pleasant day. On the fourth day of their visit, Xavier arrived with a note. It was from Mrs. Sennett, written in blue ink, in a large, serene, ornamented hand, on linen–finish paper:

Tomorrow is the last day Mr. Curley has and the Children all wanted the Picnic so much. The Men can walk to the Pond but it is too far for the Children. I see your Friend has a car and I hate to ask this but could you possibly drive us to the Pond tomorrow morning?

Very sincerely yours, 
Carmen Sennett

One evening, Mary came to call on me and we sat on an old table in the back yard to watch the sunset. Papa came today, she said, and we've got to go back day after tomorrow.

Is Mrs. Sennett going to stay here? 
She said at supper she was. She said this time she really was, because she'd said that last year she came back, but now she means it. 
I said, Oh dear, scarcely knowing which side I was on.
It was awful at supper. I cried and cried. 
Did Theresa cry? 
Oh, we all cried. Papa cried, too. We always do.
But don't you think Mrs. Sennett needs a rest? 
Yes, but I think she'll come, though. Papa told her he'd cry every single night at supper if she didn't, and then we all did. 
The next day I heard that Mrs. Sennett was going back with them just to help settle. She came over the following morning to say goodbye, supported by all five children. She was wearing her traveling hat of black satin and black straw, with sequins. High and somber, above her ravaged face, it had quite a Spanish–grandee air.

This isn't really goodbye, she said. I'll be back as soon as I get these bad, noisy children off my 
hands.  But the children hung on to her skirt and tugged at her sleeves, shaking their heads frantically, silently saying, No! No! No! to her with their puckered–up mouths.

Florida is characterised by

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

Florida is a state in the Southeast United States. To its west, it is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico and by Albama and Georgia to the north. Florida is the third most populous state and 22nd most extensive state of U.S.A. It is at or near sea level and is characterised by sedimentary soil. In the north of Florida, the climate is subtropical and in the south, the climate is tropical. Everglades National Park is very famous in Florida where conspicuous species like American alligator, American crocodile, Florida panther and manatee are found. Most of the population of Florida is Cuban expatriate community. Today, Florida is facing environmental concerns. Moreover, its economy relies primarily on tourism, agriculture and transportation. Sugarcane, tomatoes, citrus and strawberries are chiefly grown here. Florida is internationally known for golf, tennis, auto-racing and water sports.