Reading Comprehension

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

GALLOPED

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

King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights, but because of his beautiful queen, Rani Matsya. The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated, with her beauty and brains. At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes. You could not escape her deep–set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the victim and the culprit. Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give. People in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by, she always gave to the compassionate and poor.
Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty and no means to rectify it. Raman was wrecked with poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord. His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children. Every morning he went door to door for some work, food or money. The kindness of people always got him enough to take home. But Raman was a little self–centered. His world began with him first, followed by his family and the rest. So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess. This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interests as he always put on a long face when he reached home.
One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home, he heard that Rani Matsya who to pass from the very place he was standing. Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was, she would hand him a bag full of gold coins – enough for the rest of his life, enough to buy food and supplies for his family. He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife, so he can fulfill his own wishes.
He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen. Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted. Raman went on his knees and praised the queen. I have heard you are most generous and most chaste, show his beggar some charity. Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return. Surprised by such a question, Raman looked at his bowl full of rice. With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen. Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said, you shall be given what is due to you. Saying this, the chariot galloped away.
Raman abused her under his breath. This he never thought would happen. How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice. Just then he saw a sack at the entrance. His wife said some men had come and kept it there. He opened it to find it full of rice. He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin. Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains. If only I had given my entire bowl, thought Raman, I would have had a sack full of gold.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

HAND

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

King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights, but because of his beautiful queen, Rani Matsya. The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated, with her beauty and brains. At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes. You could not escape her deep–set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the victim and the culprit. Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give. People in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by, she always gave to the compassionate and poor.
Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty and no means to rectify it. Raman was wrecked with poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord. His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children. Every morning he went door to door for some work, food or money. The kindness of people always got him enough to take home. But Raman was a little self–centered. His world began with him first, followed by his family and the rest. So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess. This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interests as he always put on a long face when he reached home.
One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home, he heard that Rani Matsya who to pass from the very place he was standing. Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was, she would hand him a bag full of gold coins – enough for the rest of his life, enough to buy food and supplies for his family. He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife, so he can fulfill his own wishes.
He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen. Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted. Raman went on his knees and praised the queen. I have heard you are most generous and most chaste, show his beggar some charity. Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return. Surprised by such a question, Raman looked at his bowl full of rice. With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen. Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said, you shall be given what is due to you. Saying this, the chariot galloped away.
Raman abused her under his breath. This he never thought would happen. How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice. Just then he saw a sack at the entrance. His wife said some men had come and kept it there. He opened it to find it full of rice. He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin. Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains. If only I had given my entire bowl, thought Raman, I would have had a sack full of gold.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

ELATED

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

King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights, but because of his beautiful queen, Rani Matsya. The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated, with her beauty and brains. At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes. You could not escape her deep–set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the victim and the culprit. Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give. People in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by, she always gave to the compassionate and poor.
Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty and no means to rectify it. Raman was wrecked with poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord. His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children. Every morning he went door to door for some work, food or money. The kindness of people always got him enough to take home. But Raman was a little self–centered. His world began with him first, followed by his family and the rest. So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess. This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interests as he always put on a long face when he reached home.
One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home, he heard that Rani Matsya who to pass from the very place he was standing. Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was, she would hand him a bag full of gold coins – enough for the rest of his life, enough to buy food and supplies for his family. He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife, so he can fulfill his own wishes.
He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen. Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted. Raman went on his knees and praised the queen. I have heard you are most generous and most chaste, show his beggar some charity. Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return. Surprised by such a question, Raman looked at his bowl full of rice. With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen. Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said, you shall be given what is due to you. Saying this, the chariot galloped away.
Raman abused her under his breath. This he never thought would happen. How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice. Just then he saw a sack at the entrance. His wife said some men had come and kept it there. He opened it to find it full of rice. He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin. Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains. If only I had given my entire bowl, thought Raman, I would have had a sack full of gold.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

REVEAL

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

King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights, but because of his beautiful queen, Rani Matsya. The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated, with her beauty and brains. At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes. You could not escape her deep–set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the victim and the culprit. Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give. People in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by, she always gave to the compassionate and poor.
Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty and no means to rectify it. Raman was wrecked with poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord. His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children. Every morning he went door to door for some work, food or money. The kindness of people always got him enough to take home. But Raman was a little self–centered. His world began with him first, followed by his family and the rest. So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess. This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interests as he always put on a long face when he reached home.
One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home, he heard that Rani Matsya who to pass from the very place he was standing. Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was, she would hand him a bag full of gold coins – enough for the rest of his life, enough to buy food and supplies for his family. He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife, so he can fulfill his own wishes.
He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen. Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted. Raman went on his knees and praised the queen. I have heard you are most generous and most chaste, show his beggar some charity. Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return. Surprised by such a question, Raman looked at his bowl full of rice. With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen. Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said, you shall be given what is due to you. Saying this, the chariot galloped away.
Raman abused her under his breath. This he never thought would happen. How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice. Just then he saw a sack at the entrance. His wife said some men had come and kept it there. He opened it to find it full of rice. He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin. Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains. If only I had given my entire bowl, thought Raman, I would have had a sack full of gold.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

REVERED

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

King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights, but because of his beautiful queen, Rani Matsya. The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated, with her beauty and brains. At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes. You could not escape her deep–set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the victim and the culprit. Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give. People in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by, she always gave to the compassionate and poor.
Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty and no means to rectify it. Raman was wrecked with poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord. His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children. Every morning he went door to door for some work, food or money. The kindness of people always got him enough to take home. But Raman was a little self–centered. His world began with him first, followed by his family and the rest. So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess. This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interests as he always put on a long face when he reached home.
One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home, he heard that Rani Matsya who to pass from the very place he was standing. Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was, she would hand him a bag full of gold coins – enough for the rest of his life, enough to buy food and supplies for his family. He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife, so he can fulfill his own wishes.
He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen. Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted. Raman went on his knees and praised the queen. I have heard you are most generous and most chaste, show his beggar some charity. Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return. Surprised by such a question, Raman looked at his bowl full of rice. With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen. Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said, you shall be given what is due to you. Saying this, the chariot galloped away.
Raman abused her under his breath. This he never thought would happen. How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice. Just then he saw a sack at the entrance. His wife said some men had come and kept it there. He opened it to find it full of rice. He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin. Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains. If only I had given my entire bowl, thought Raman, I would have had a sack full of gold.

Is the electronic media a monster that needs to be tamed?

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

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

Which of the following can be inferred about media from this report?

1. it is a growing industry that would not want to be fettered.
2. it embodies the principles of freedom of expression.
3. free news is more important than controlled news.
4. a regulated media cannot be the fourth estate.

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

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

Whenever media is attacked, it invokes the spirit of people's inalienable right to know and largely succeeds in warding off the attack because

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

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

What impact, in the author's perception, do aberrations like phone hacking have had on the otherwise vibrant British media? (i) They have seriously dented the reputation of media. (ii) They are symptomatic of a malaise that gives excuse to the forces that wish to trim the wings of the media. (iii) They can have far-reaching consequences as it showed in England.

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

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

How can media play its social role with devotion and caution so that there is not another Rupert Murdoch?

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

The closure of the popular tabloid, News of the World, the arrest of the top executives of the Rupert Murdoch-run News International on phone hacking charges and the proceedings of the Leveson inquiry have focussed attention on the skewed internal workings of an otherwise vibrant British media. This has resulted in a bizarre turning of the tables. A readership accustomed to viewing the media as white knights in shining armour puncturing the pretensions of the powerful and the pompous has suddenly been exposed to unethical practices, blatant illegalities and the cosy relationship that exists between the fourth estate and politicians. 
The results have not been edifying. In the past, the media conducted themselves with the militant cussedness of trade unions. Every right was fiercely guarded and transformed into a privilege; every hint of regulation was instantly transformed into a larger battle for democracy; and the occasional statement on accountability was painted as an insidious assault on the people’s inalienable right to know.
The boot is now on the other foot. Instead of being assiduously wooed and flattered by the powerful, the Leveson inquiry has witnessed powerful media barons such as Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, being subjected to merciless interrogation. Indeed, as the inquiry meanders from the internal workings of the newsrooms to politics, the likes of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, are having a torrid time explaining their convivial relations with the Murdoch empire. Hostile public opinion is veering to the opinion that existing laws and quasi-official bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission aren’t enough. What the media need is a public-spirited, independent regulator.
It is difficult to gauge whether or not the chairman of Press Council, Markandey Katju, was influenced by developments in London when he rushed into battle against India’s ‘unionized’ media. A high-spirited individual with very definite (and occasionally bizarre) views on all subjects ranging from Salman Rushdie’s writings to cricket’s role as a promoter of false consciousness, the retired Supreme Court judge has proffered a simple argument: if all professions are regulated, why should media be any different? Waging a turf battle against the electronic-media-appointed watchdog body headed by the former chief justice, J.S.Verma, Katju has strongly argued that the Press Council be transformed into a Media Council and assume the role of a regulator.
Katju, it would seem, had very definite ideas about editorial content and the hierarchy of news. In his perception, the media must play the role of social reformers and not fritter away their eagerness in frivolity and tittle-tattle, never mind the fact that not all their consumers are preoccupied with virtuousness. It is precisely because of his highbrow certitudes and disdain for popular journalism that his insistence on a media regulator has been viewed with a measure of amusement by the fourth estate.
If an all powerful regulator in the mould of Katju, it has been argued, assumed responsibility for the whole media, it would be tantamount to murdering diversity and ruining a vibrant and growing industry. In spelling out his philosophical preferences robustly, Katju unwittingly helped focus attention on the dangers posed by an activist regulator who would replicate the ideals of the so-called New Information Order, once favoured by the fellow travellers of the Soviet Union.

Why does William Price state that ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling’?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage is an exposition on

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The author while talking about barter system in India refers to jajmani system. Besides highlighting the barter system prevalent in India, what else does this system convey?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage records

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

Some of the following give forth many ingredients that define money. Which one of them can be taken as the chief ingredient?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.