Reading Comprehension Questions

Multiple choice
  1. Mutation is the antithesis of heredity.

  2. Mutation is detrimental to the reproduction of gene.

  3. Mutation occurs when genes do not reproduce itself.

  4. Mutation brings about a noxious change in the trait of an organism.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

“Mutation” means change, alteration. Under the influence of some external agent, genes while reproducing develop some defect, which causes altered gene or mutation in the gene. Thus, mutation is antithesis of heredity, as heredity insures the basic continuity and coherence of the organic form whereas mutation creates a diversity of genes. Hence, (1) is the answer. Option (4) is not correct as mutation brings about a change in the trait of an organism, which might not be harmful.

Multiple choice

What is the solution stressed in the passage?

(1) IF THERE WAS any doubt remaining about why the United States needs a missile defense system, it was dispelled recently by the actions of North Korea. Having shunned negotiations, North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship leaves little doubt about its access to nuclear weaponry. Seven years ago the North Koreans demonstrated long-range missile capability and are now suspected of having the means to strike

(10) Hawaii, Alaska, and the western United States. It recently ended its moratorium on long-range missile testing. Yet in the face of this crisis, the Defense Department's proposed budget slashes $1 billion this year and billions more over the next five years from the only program that can protect Americans from such grave and hostile threats.And North Korea is not the only threat.

(20) Ballistic missile technology is widely available and will only spread over time. Many nations can launch short- and medium-range missiles, and numerous others have access to advanced long-range missile technology.
Unfortunately, the wavering commitment of past presidents and Congresses has left the United States virtually defenseless against ballistic missile attacks today. Until now, our

(30) nation was protected by a single ineffectual layer -- rhetoric. President Bush's December 2001 decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and proceed with the deployment of an ambitious multilayered missile defense overcame this seemingly insurmountable hurdle. Much progress has been made, and a limited defense against North Korea is under construction in Alaska and California.

(40) The challenge is whether the United States will live up to the rhetoric and continue providing the resources and resolve needed to defend the nation against a catastrophic threat in the face of pressing financial burdens.
A robust defense deters rogue nations and terrorist groups. By lowering the probability of a successful missile strike, the enemy is denied the certainty of its effectiveness and

(50) is virtually guaranteed retaliation for such an attack. Additionally, one should be mindful not only of the cost of the system but the protection it is designed to provide -- the only real protection against a limited nuclear-, biological-, or chemical-armed ballistic missile attack.
Building a robust, multilayered defense is not an easy task. The technologies are sophisticated, the engineering is


(60) challenging, and the global integration of sensors, assets, and communications to precisely hit a ''bullet with a bullet" is daunting. Important steps have been taken, but much more is needed.
The eight interceptors recently deployed in Alaska and California provides a limited defense against the North Korean threat. If it were expanded, it would offer protection against missiles launched from the Middle

 (70) East. Not surprisingly, moving the system from the drawing board to the field is challenging. Deploying advanced systems is not without complication, but the fundamental ability to intercept and destroy an attacking missile has been demonstrated.
Continued work is necessary, but the proliferation of ballistic missile technology calls for an even more comprehensive

(80) approach. Facing a period of fiscal austerity and a billion-dollar budget cut, the missile defense program must reexamine its options and place a premium on those approaches capable of producing highly adaptable defenses that can engage threats from multiple locations around the globe and defend against short-, medium-, and long-range missiles.
We cannot firmly predict the threats we will

(90) face tomorrow. A missile defense is a hedge against that state of uncertainty. North Korea's recent actions serve as a reminder that the threat of a missile attack is not some flight of fancy but a serious hazard to the United States, which should prompt it to redouble efforts to protect the American people.

  1. Re-joining the Anti-Ballastic Missile Treaty.

  2. To built a missile defense especially according to the vulnerable points of America.

  3. The prevention of the suddenness of the attacks by prior information.

  4. It would make the technology more sophisticated.

  5. It would boost America's morale.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

(2) is the correct choice as per lines 46-56.

Multiple choice

According to the passage there is a need to build a missile defense

(1) IF THERE WAS any doubt remaining about why the United States needs a missile defense system, it was dispelled recently by the actions of North Korea. Having shunned negotiations, North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship leaves little doubt about its access to nuclear weaponry. Seven years ago the North Koreans demonstrated long-range missile capability and are now suspected of having the means to strike

(10) Hawaii, Alaska, and the western United States. It recently ended its moratorium on long-range missile testing. Yet in the face of this crisis, the Defense Department's proposed budget slashes $1 billion this year and billions more over the next five years from the only program that can protect Americans from such grave and hostile threats.And North Korea is not the only threat.

(20) Ballistic missile technology is widely available and will only spread over time. Many nations can launch short- and medium-range missiles, and numerous others have access to advanced long-range missile technology.
Unfortunately, the wavering commitment of past presidents and Congresses has left the United States virtually defenseless against ballistic missile attacks today. Until now, our

(30) nation was protected by a single ineffectual layer -- rhetoric. President Bush's December 2001 decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and proceed with the deployment of an ambitious multilayered missile defense overcame this seemingly insurmountable hurdle. Much progress has been made, and a limited defense against North Korea is under construction in Alaska and California.

(40) The challenge is whether the United States will live up to the rhetoric and continue providing the resources and resolve needed to defend the nation against a catastrophic threat in the face of pressing financial burdens.
A robust defense deters rogue nations and terrorist groups. By lowering the probability of a successful missile strike, the enemy is denied the certainty of its effectiveness and

(50) is virtually guaranteed retaliation for such an attack. Additionally, one should be mindful not only of the cost of the system but the protection it is designed to provide -- the only real protection against a limited nuclear-, biological-, or chemical-armed ballistic missile attack.
Building a robust, multilayered defense is not an easy task. The technologies are sophisticated, the engineering is


(60) challenging, and the global integration of sensors, assets, and communications to precisely hit a ''bullet with a bullet" is daunting. Important steps have been taken, but much more is needed.
The eight interceptors recently deployed in Alaska and California provides a limited defense against the North Korean threat. If it were expanded, it would offer protection against missiles launched from the Middle

 (70) East. Not surprisingly, moving the system from the drawing board to the field is challenging. Deploying advanced systems is not without complication, but the fundamental ability to intercept and destroy an attacking missile has been demonstrated.
Continued work is necessary, but the proliferation of ballistic missile technology calls for an even more comprehensive

(80) approach. Facing a period of fiscal austerity and a billion-dollar budget cut, the missile defense program must reexamine its options and place a premium on those approaches capable of producing highly adaptable defenses that can engage threats from multiple locations around the globe and defend against short-, medium-, and long-range missiles.
We cannot firmly predict the threats we will

(90) face tomorrow. A missile defense is a hedge against that state of uncertainty. North Korea's recent actions serve as a reminder that the threat of a missile attack is not some flight of fancy but a serious hazard to the United States, which should prompt it to redouble efforts to protect the American people.

  1. because of the decrease in the allotted funds to the defense department

  2. because of the encountered hostility by the U.S.A.

  3. because of the threat of ballistic movements

  4. to be prepared for the imminent danger

  5. because of the weak defense equipment

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

(4) is the right choice as per the last paragraph of the passage.

Multiple choice

What is the tone of the passage?

(1) Religion has screwed us up for a long time and we'd be better off without it. By "us" I mean Americans living in the 21st century. Without religions we would have fewer labels separating us from each other and we wouldn't hate Jews or Catholics or Muslims. If we didn't have religions, we wouldn't have to convert anyone or "save" anyone. If we didn't have religions, people could no longer get caught up in the fine lines of religious

(10) righteousness or be trapped in a double-standard morality. And most importantly, we would be truly free of religious engendered guilt that never quite goes away. 
In America, people are less tolerant than before and words like Jew, Muslim, and Christian set us off and make us mad because we connect these labels with violence and war. We are planning to attack the "axis of evil" and in giving Iraq this label,

(20) we assume a moral duty on our part and the devil on theirs. There is no simple answer to the problems in the Middle East which are daily getting more and more out of control. But adding quasi-religious labels pushes us farther apart and increases the tension and opposition on all sides.
I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic grade school and high school and I don't regret it. It was an interesting experience

(30) and surely formed a great part of my character. But looking back, I see that the system of organized religion is rigged and the deck is stacked more in favor of the church than it is in favor of the faithful. Consider for a moment the Christian need to convert and save people, two more activities that could be done away with if we didn't have religion. Converting more followers keeps the organized religion afloat and promising

(40) salvation is the hook that gets people's attention. No one knows what happens after death. But some religions offer a promise of heaven or hell and, like children, we willing believe in this fantastic fairy tale.
On another note, the church introduces us to the concept of guilt and tells us we are guilty even before we are born. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. 
Nonetheless, if we find God, or Jesus, or.

(50) convert, or confess before we die, we're saved. No sweat. It's all hogwash. In my opinion, Jesus came to show us how to live and how to love and that's it. 
He died for no ones' sins and just wanted people to start to think and live differently. But look what happened.
We have a proliferation of Christian religions and their names are many: Anglican, Assembly of God, Baptist, Catholic,

(60) Charismatic, Christian Science, Church of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Episcopal, Evangelical, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, Seventh Day Adventist and on and on and on. Many variations on the same theme, the same laws and rules and commandments and prejudices and hate and the devil and hell and damnation and a host

(70) of horrible ways that God can get even with us. It's ridiculous. Religion treats us like small children who don't know any better and who need to be kept in line. And guess what? It's not working. We break a commandment on Friday, go to services and get scolded on Sunday and then break the same commandment again on Tuesday. 
Religion comes from the Latin words "ReLigio". "Ligio" means to tie or unite and

(80) religio means retie or reunite. What is being reunited? Our Selves and our God? The ego of the Outer Man and the Truth of the Inner Man? Whatever we define it to be, this reunion is within ourselves. It is a personal resolution each of us must face at some point in life and deal with in our own way. We can listen to what others say to us, suggest to us, teach to us, but we have to do the thinking, the deciding and the acting. We can't let

(90) religions do it for us and we can't be free or live free until we do it within and for ourselves. 
Guilt, on the other hand is a destroyer and religions use it as a motivator and it in turn, keeps them in business. Guilt destroys our self-esteem and religious guilt never really goes away because our forgiveness comes from a priest or minister and who are not even a part of the problem. When we screw up, we have to make things right with those we have

(100) offended and ask them directly for forgiveness and not seek the forgiveness of a third party, including God. It takes a lot of guts to say this, but for me it's just that straightforward and it works. And it's not about religion. Maybe a person needs a trained counselor or therapist, but not a quick fix from a priest. 
Pre-Christian belief systems such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and

(110) Taoism offer ways to gain wisdom and think and live in harmony. Islam, unfortunately, is completely misunderstood, even by some of its followers and has become the bastard child of extremists. Equally unfortunate is Christianity and all its diverse forms of intolerance and absolute authority which has really screwed us up mentally, psychologically and emotionally. That these two religions now dominate in countries that would start a

(120) nuclear and chemical third World War is not surprising. Religion is a major part of our way of life, but I think we would be better off without it.

  1. Critical

  2. Subjective

  3. Objective

  4. Theological

  5. Analytical

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

(2) is the correct option as the author has given his own opinion in the passage.

Multiple choice

The central idea of the passage is

(1) Most twentieth-century Americans found bio-terrorism—the deliberate release of disease-causing microorganisms with the aim of causing devastating epidemics—unthinkable, perhaps even more so than nuclear war. Along with chemical warfare, biological warfare was forbidden by the 1925 Geneva Convention. More “civilized” nations regarded countries known to have tested biological weapons, such as Japan during World War II,

(10) with horror. To be sure, during the 1950s and 1960s, both the United States and the Soviet Union developed bio-weapons programs— purely, they said, for defense in case the other side used such terrible weapons first. In 1969, however, President Richard Nixon formally ended the U.S. bio-weapons program, and in 1972, the United Nations established the international Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in which all

(20) signatory nations pledged never to develop, produce, or stockpile such weapons. Both the United States and Russia signed it. 
Confidence that no one would ever dare to use bioweapons began to be shaken during the late 1990s. After the collapse of the Soviet government in 1991, Ken Alibek (Kanatjan Alibekov), former deputy director of the Soviet bioweapons program, revealed that the program had continued long after 1972.

(30) Rumors circulated that some of the Soviet Union’s bioweapons stock had fallen into the hands of smaller nations, such as Iraq and North Korea. The Clinton administration carried out simulation exercises for smallpox and plague attacks on civilian populations in 1999 and 2000, and Congress budgeted more than $1.5 billion specifically for bioterrorism preparedness in fiscal year 2000, more than double the amount allotted in the

(40) previous year.
The idea that disgruntled individuals or small groups as well as rogue governments might employ bioterror weapons also began to circulate around the start of the new century. Some writers called bioweapons “the poor man’s atomic bomb” because they were easier and cheaper to produce than nuclear weapons. Experts pointed out that these smaller groups might not be deterred by

(50) factors that might limit the activities of national governments, such as fear of massive retaliation. 
The most popular proposed bioterror microbe was the bacterium that causes anthrax, a disease usually confined to hoofed animals such as cattle and sheep but able to infect humans, often with fatal results. Anthrax bacteria were appealing because under harsh conditions they encase themselves in

(60) protective cocoons, forming spores that are almost impossible to destroy by methods that normally kill bacteria. Dried and ground into powder, such spores would be fairly easy for terrorists to distribute, and they would revert to their disease-causing form once they entered a human or animal body. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, letters or parcels supposedly containing anthrax spores appeared so often that an article in the July

(70) 1999 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called sending them a “hot new hobby.” There were more than 150 anthrax incidents between March 1998 and July 1999 alone. 
Every one of them, however, was a hoax. No one, it seemed, had actually been both willing and able to mail the deadly bacteria—and many experts doubted that anyone ever would. Some stressed that preparing and effectively distributing microorganisms as

(80) bioweapons required more technical skill and equipment than small groups were likely to possess. Others pointed out that there had been only one documented bioterror attack on American soil: In 1984, followers of cult guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh added salmonella bacteria to restaurant salad bars to sicken citizens in The Dalles, Oregon, so they would not vote in an election that the group wanted to influence. The attack made 751 people

(90) mildly ill but caused no deaths. 
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, therefore, articles containing dire warnings about bioterrorism were matched by an almost equal number expressing powerful skepticism. For instance, W. Seth Carus, senior research professor and bioterrorism specialist at National Defense University, stated in a 1999 New Republic article that “the threat [of bioterrorism] is less compelling
(100) 
and not as imminent as often claimed.” Similarly, Barbara Rosenberg, chair of the Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological Weapons, was quoted in June 2001 as claiming that “even those in high places in the military judge bioterror to be a low probability here in the U.S.” Jonathan B. Tucker and Amy Sands, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in July 1999, attributed fear of bioterrorism to

(110) government exaggeration reinforced by “an obsessive fascination with catastrophic terrorism” in Hollywood films and popular novels. 
Perhaps even more tellingly, most of the media, along with the bulk of the American public, ignored the bioterrorism issue entirely during this period. InfoTrac, a wide-reaching periodical database, cites only seventy articles on the subject between the

(120) database’s earliest records in 1980 and the end of August 2001. John R. Hamre, head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., himself was concerned about bioterrorism but admitted in April 2001 that it was “not something that average Americans worry much about.” 
Then came the terrorist airplane attacks on New York’s World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—and three weeks later,

(130)Bob Stevens, photo editor for a supermarket tabloid in Boca Raton, Florida, entered JFK Medical Center in the nearby city of Atlantis suffering from chills and fever. Emergency room doctors thought he might have meningitis, a brain infection, but Larry Bush, the hospital’s chief of staff and an experienced specialist in infectious diseases, looked at a sample of Stevens’s spinal fluid under a microscope and made a far more

(140) startling diagnosis: anthrax. A Florida laboratory confirmed the diagnosis on October 4, and Stevens died a day later. Careful checks of his background and activities showed that there was no way he could have caught the disease naturally. Hours after Stevens’s death, a man who had worked in the same building— the supervisor of the mail room—was admitted to a Miami hospital with what proved to be another case

(150) of anthrax. The unthinkable had become not only thinkable but real. 
As the anthrax attacks continued and expanded over the next two months, bioterrorism became the year’s third-hottest story, dwarfed only by the World Trade Center disaster and the war in Afghanistan. InfoTrac lists 545 articles about bioterrorism published during October and November alone. After the attacks had spread to major

(160) media offices in New York and closed down the office buildings of the U.S. Senate in Washington and had been shown to be spread by something that entered everyone’s home—the mail—even respected NBC news anchorman Tom Brokaw signed off one night by saying, “In Cipro [the antibiotic being used to prevent and treat anthrax] we trust.” Then and later, many opinions were expressed about what was being done or should be

(170) done to combat actual and potential bioterror attacks—but skepticism about the likelihood of such attacks was no longer among them. 
The fall 2001 anthrax outbreak was a far cry from the apocalyptic scenarios envisioned in movies and government simulations. A mere twenty-one people caught the disease, and only five died. Nonetheless, this handful of individuals changed Americans’ worldview forever because they were far from the only

(180) casualties of the still untraced attacks. Also severely stricken were an already-shaky economy, the U.S. postal system, and, perhaps most telling of all, the public’s confidence that “it can’t happen here.” Ruth Levy Guyer and Jonathan D. Moreno wrote in Social Education in March 2002, “The anthrax events have done great physical damage to a small number of individuals. . . . The events have done great psychological damage to

(190) many more. Bioweapons were once the stuff of science fiction . . . today they are the realities of contemporary life.”

  1. to study the link between bio terrorism and WTO attacks

  2. to assess the authenticity of preconceived ideas regarding bioterrorism

  3. to enumerate various weapons used in bio terrorism

  4. to assess the seriousness of bioterrorism where world peace is concerned

  5. to study the concept of bioterrorism

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

(5) is the right option as the passage gives an introduction to the concept of bioterrorism.

Multiple choice

Which of the following titles would be the appropriate title for the passage?

Many of you have long experienced in your manufacturing operations the advantages of substantial, well-contrived, and well-executed machinery. 

Experience has also shown you the difference of the results between mechanism which is neat, clean, well arranged, and always in a high state of repair; and that which is allowed to be dirty, in disorder, and without the means of preventing unnecessary friction, and which therefore becomes, and works, much out of repair. In the first case the whole economy and management are good, every operation proceeds with ease, order, and success. 
In the last, the reverse must follow, and dissatisfaction among all the agents and instrument interested or occupied in the general process, which cannot fail to create great loss. 
If, then, due care as to the state of your inanimate machines can produce such beneficial results, what may not be expected if you devote equal attention to your vital machines, which are far more wonderfully constructed? 
When you shall acquire a right knowledge of these, of their curious mechanism, of their self-adjusting powers; when the proper main spring shall be applied to their various movements — you will become conscious of their real value, and you will readily be induced to turn your thoughts more frequently from your inanimate to your living machines; and you will discover that the latter may be easily trained and directed to procure a large increase of pecuniary gain, while you may also derive from them a high and substantial satisfaction.

  1. A new view of organization.

  2. New trends to be healthy.

  3. An insight into effective mechanisms.

  4. A new view of society.

  5. Mechanization and it's resources.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

In light of above explanation, (4) would be the appropriate title and hence, is the answer.

Multiple choice

The paradox given in the passage is

(1) Religion has screwed us up for a long time and we'd be better off without it. By "us" I mean Americans living in the 21st century. Without religions we would have fewer labels separating us from each other and we wouldn't hate Jews or Catholics or Muslims. If we didn't have religions, we wouldn't have to convert anyone or "save" anyone. If we didn't have religions, people could no longer get caught up in the fine lines of religious

(10) righteousness or be trapped in a double-standard morality. And most importantly, we would be truly free of religious engendered guilt that never quite goes away. 
In America, people are less tolerant than before and words like Jew, Muslim, and Christian set us off and make us mad because we connect these labels with violence and war. We are planning to attack the "axis of evil" and in giving Iraq this label,

(20) we assume a moral duty on our part and the devil on theirs. There is no simple answer to the problems in the Middle East which are daily getting more and more out of control. But adding quasi-religious labels pushes us farther apart and increases the tension and opposition on all sides.
I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic grade school and high school and I don't regret it. It was an interesting experience

(30) and surely formed a great part of my character. But looking back, I see that the system of organized religion is rigged and the deck is stacked more in favor of the church than it is in favor of the faithful. Consider for a moment the Christian need to convert and save people, two more activities that could be done away with if we didn't have religion. Converting more followers keeps the organized religion afloat and promising

(40) salvation is the hook that gets people's attention. No one knows what happens after death. But some religions offer a promise of heaven or hell and, like children, we willing believe in this fantastic fairy tale.
On another note, the church introduces us to the concept of guilt and tells us we are guilty even before we are born. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. 
Nonetheless, if we find God, or Jesus, or.

(50) convert, or confess before we die, we're saved. No sweat. It's all hogwash. In my opinion, Jesus came to show us how to live and how to love and that's it. 
He died for no ones' sins and just wanted people to start to think and live differently. But look what happened.
We have a proliferation of Christian religions and their names are many: Anglican, Assembly of God, Baptist, Catholic,

(60) Charismatic, Christian Science, Church of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Episcopal, Evangelical, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, Seventh Day Adventist and on and on and on. Many variations on the same theme, the same laws and rules and commandments and prejudices and hate and the devil and hell and damnation and a host

(70) of horrible ways that God can get even with us. It's ridiculous. Religion treats us like small children who don't know any better and who need to be kept in line. And guess what? It's not working. We break a commandment on Friday, go to services and get scolded on Sunday and then break the same commandment again on Tuesday. 
Religion comes from the Latin words "ReLigio". "Ligio" means to tie or unite and

(80) religio means retie or reunite. What is being reunited? Our Selves and our God? The ego of the Outer Man and the Truth of the Inner Man? Whatever we define it to be, this reunion is within ourselves. It is a personal resolution each of us must face at some point in life and deal with in our own way. We can listen to what others say to us, suggest to us, teach to us, but we have to do the thinking, the deciding and the acting. We can't let

(90) religions do it for us and we can't be free or live free until we do it within and for ourselves. 
Guilt, on the other hand is a destroyer and religions use it as a motivator and it in turn, keeps them in business. Guilt destroys our self-esteem and religious guilt never really goes away because our forgiveness comes from a priest or minister and who are not even a part of the problem. When we screw up, we have to make things right with those we have

(100) offended and ask them directly for forgiveness and not seek the forgiveness of a third party, including God. It takes a lot of guts to say this, but for me it's just that straightforward and it works. And it's not about religion. Maybe a person needs a trained counselor or therapist, but not a quick fix from a priest. 
Pre-Christian belief systems such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and

(110) Taoism offer ways to gain wisdom and think and live in harmony. Islam, unfortunately, is completely misunderstood, even by some of its followers and has become the bastard child of extremists. Equally unfortunate is Christianity and all its diverse forms of intolerance and absolute authority which has really screwed us up mentally, psychologically and emotionally. That these two religions now dominate in countries that would start a

(120) nuclear and chemical third World War is not surprising. Religion is a major part of our way of life, but I think we would be better off without it.

  1. that religion is meant to be derived from within a person but we look for it outside

  2. guilt, which is a negative force, is used as a motivator by religion

  3. religion gives both heaven and hell

  4. religion should teach tolerance but it lessens the tolerance

  5. in the religion, faith has disappeared

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

(2) is the right option as per line 92-98.

Multiple choice

The tone of the passage is

(1) Imagine yourself as a journalist today who is frozen and wakes up in the United States 100 years from now. The country has changed quite a bit from what you remember. Technology has definitely advanced, language seems to have evolved a bit, and nothing looks the same, except fashion. Due to a recent trend that brought back the 90's you are strangely up on the recent fashion trends. As you roam the streets, you try to

(10) gain a bearing on this advanced country so you pick up a newspaper. You notice something rather peculiar about every article - the only source is the United States Government. As you read further, you notice very little information is given at all, and the details that are given are always in favor of the government.
Thinking back to 1999, you remember that high school publications were already

(20) censored and college censorship was not far behind. Could that trend have moved all the way to professional journalistic organizations? While this is merely a fictitious projection into the future, it portrays the likely outcome of the precedents that are being set today. If nothing is done, trends in high school and college censorship may lead to total press censorship in the United States, thus violating the First Amendment to the

(30) United States Constitution. This would, in turn, exterminate journalism and leave an assorted field of public relations. 
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the

(40) government for a redress of grievances." A journalist, whether he or she is a writer, editor, photographer or artist, believes in this right and has an obligation to use it to inform the public. So, the First Amendment not only protects journalists' rights to free speech, but it also protects the public's right to information. However, the courts have begun to take away these rights. It began with high school publications in

(50) 1988. During the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against students and gave school officials the ability to censor student publications without violating the First Amendment. High school journalists now have the right to only print what the officials deem appropriate. This basically means only the good stuff about the school will be published. Therefore, high school publications are no longer a form of

(60) journalism, but rather, an expense free form of public relations for high schools. This is okay, though, because they are only high school students. All they need to learn right now is how to write using proper journalistic form, right? Preparing for an actual career as a journalist does not come until college. 
The only problem with this is that, as of 1997, student publications at state-supported institutions of higher learning across America

(70) are threatened by censorship as well. In Kincaid v. Gibson, U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood ruled that administrators at Kentucky State University could censor the publication of a yearbook because it was of poor quality. This ruling could set a precedent that would allow all colleges across America to censor student publications. The goal of college is to prepare people for a career. If the rules of professional journalists do not apply to

(80) college journalists, these students will not be prepared for the job they have ahead of them. Students accustomed to being merely public relations agents for their college will carry this forum to professional publications and affect every citizen of the United States. As the old saying goes, "it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks," so these professional journalists will become public relations agents for the United States Government, thus giving

(90) the public a censored version of the truth. 
So this brings us back to you, 100 years from now. You have the opportunity to stay. Sure the technology is nice, but staying would mean settling with a life of frivolity. The people here do not realize they are cheated every day by their local governments. They do not even know their president died two years ago because the government thought that information would create chaos among

(100) the masses. You also have the option of returning to your own time with this new knowledge and continue your life as if nothing had changed. You know that if you go back you will have to take advantage of your dying freedom of speech to inform the public of what could happen because of censorship and increased governmental control. So, do you go or do you stay? Thomas Jefferson perhaps answered this question the best

 (110) when he said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

  1. speculative

  2. academic

  3. logical

  4. critical

  5. objective

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

(4) is the correct option as the author is criticizing censorship in the passage.

Multiple choice

What is the primary purpose of the passage?

Many of you have long experienced in your manufacturing operations the advantages of substantial, well-contrived, and well-executed machinery. 

Experience has also shown you the difference of the results between mechanism which is neat, clean, well arranged, and always in a high state of repair; and that which is allowed to be dirty, in disorder, and without the means of preventing unnecessary friction, and which therefore becomes, and works, much out of repair. In the first case the whole economy and management are good, every operation proceeds with ease, order, and success. 
In the last, the reverse must follow, and dissatisfaction among all the agents and instrument interested or occupied in the general process, which cannot fail to create great loss. 
If, then, due care as to the state of your inanimate machines can produce such beneficial results, what may not be expected if you devote equal attention to your vital machines, which are far more wonderfully constructed? 
When you shall acquire a right knowledge of these, of their curious mechanism, of their self-adjusting powers; when the proper main spring shall be applied to their various movements — you will become conscious of their real value, and you will readily be induced to turn your thoughts more frequently from your inanimate to your living machines; and you will discover that the latter may be easily trained and directed to procure a large increase of pecuniary gain, while you may also derive from them a high and substantial satisfaction.

  1. Co-ordination among different organs in our body and hygienic diet is the secret of a healthy being.

  2. Good and effective management is substantial for successful operating mechanisms within an organisation.

  3. Harmonization and order among individuals of the society would create a better society.

  4. Well - contrived and well excepted machinery results in ordered and satisfied mechanism whereas unnecessary friction in machinery causes disorder among the agents in the mechanism.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The concept of machinery and manufacturing operations in first four paragraphs are cited as an example to explain the main idea of the passage. In this passage, the author draws a similarity between inanimate machines and living machines (clue is provided by fifth paragraph). In this light, option (2) and (4) are ruled out.
By living machines, the author means individuals or human beings that are a past of the society (fifth paragraph) “The latter may be easily trained” in fifth paragraph provides the clue that eh author emphasizes on the individuals as they can be trained but different organs in our body cannot be easily trained. Hence, (3) is the answer.

Multiple choice

What is the idea expressed in the 1st paragraph of the passage?

(1) Imagine yourself as a journalist today who is frozen and wakes up in the United States 100 years from now. The country has changed quite a bit from what you remember. Technology has definitely advanced, language seems to have evolved a bit, and nothing looks the same, except fashion. Due to a recent trend that brought back the 90's you are strangely up on the recent fashion trends. As you roam the streets, you try to

(10) gain a bearing on this advanced country so you pick up a newspaper. You notice something rather peculiar about every article - the only source is the United States Government. As you read further, you notice very little information is given at all, and the details that are given are always in favor of the government.
Thinking back to 1999, you remember that high school publications were already

(20) censored and college censorship was not far behind. Could that trend have moved all the way to professional journalistic organizations? While this is merely a fictitious projection into the future, it portrays the likely outcome of the precedents that are being set today. If nothing is done, trends in high school and college censorship may lead to total press censorship in the United States, thus violating the First Amendment to the

(30) United States Constitution. This would, in turn, exterminate journalism and leave an assorted field of public relations. 
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the

(40) government for a redress of grievances." A journalist, whether he or she is a writer, editor, photographer or artist, believes in this right and has an obligation to use it to inform the public. So, the First Amendment not only protects journalists' rights to free speech, but it also protects the public's right to information. However, the courts have begun to take away these rights. It began with high school publications in

(50) 1988. During the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against students and gave school officials the ability to censor student publications without violating the First Amendment. High school journalists now have the right to only print what the officials deem appropriate. This basically means only the good stuff about the school will be published. Therefore, high school publications are no longer a form of

(60) journalism, but rather, an expense free form of public relations for high schools. This is okay, though, because they are only high school students. All they need to learn right now is how to write using proper journalistic form, right? Preparing for an actual career as a journalist does not come until college. 
The only problem with this is that, as of 1997, student publications at state-supported institutions of higher learning across America

(70) are threatened by censorship as well. In Kincaid v. Gibson, U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood ruled that administrators at Kentucky State University could censor the publication of a yearbook because it was of poor quality. This ruling could set a precedent that would allow all colleges across America to censor student publications. The goal of college is to prepare people for a career. If the rules of professional journalists do not apply to

(80) college journalists, these students will not be prepared for the job they have ahead of them. Students accustomed to being merely public relations agents for their college will carry this forum to professional publications and affect every citizen of the United States. As the old saying goes, "it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks," so these professional journalists will become public relations agents for the United States Government, thus giving

(90) the public a censored version of the truth. 
So this brings us back to you, 100 years from now. You have the opportunity to stay. Sure the technology is nice, but staying would mean settling with a life of frivolity. The people here do not realize they are cheated every day by their local governments. They do not even know their president died two years ago because the government thought that information would create chaos among

(100) the masses. You also have the option of returning to your own time with this new knowledge and continue your life as if nothing had changed. You know that if you go back you will have to take advantage of your dying freedom of speech to inform the public of what could happen because of censorship and increased governmental control. So, do you go or do you stay? Thomas Jefferson perhaps answered this question the best

 (110) when he said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

  1. It gives a functional situation that helps in negating a point.

  2. It introduces an exemplary situation, which helps in clarifying a concept.

  3. It gives an example that is explained later in the passage.

  4. It introduces a concept that leads to a series of speculations about a concept.

  5. It explicates a concept and later denies it.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

(2) is the right choice as the first paragraph gives an example of the future with the repercussions of censorship via the situation encountered by the journalist.

Multiple choice

Choose the option that can be the best title for the passage:

(1) Imagine yourself as a journalist today who is frozen and wakes up in the United States 100 years from now. The country has changed quite a bit from what you remember. Technology has definitely advanced, language seems to have evolved a bit, and nothing looks the same, except fashion. Due to a recent trend that brought back the 90's you are strangely up on the recent fashion trends. As you roam the streets, you try to

(10) gain a bearing on this advanced country so you pick up a newspaper. You notice something rather peculiar about every article - the only source is the United States Government. As you read further, you notice very little information is given at all, and the details that are given are always in favor of the government.
Thinking back to 1999, you remember that high school publications were already

(20) censored and college censorship was not far behind. Could that trend have moved all the way to professional journalistic organizations? While this is merely a fictitious projection into the future, it portrays the likely outcome of the precedents that are being set today. If nothing is done, trends in high school and college censorship may lead to total press censorship in the United States, thus violating the First Amendment to the

(30) United States Constitution. This would, in turn, exterminate journalism and leave an assorted field of public relations. 
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the

(40) government for a redress of grievances." A journalist, whether he or she is a writer, editor, photographer or artist, believes in this right and has an obligation to use it to inform the public. So, the First Amendment not only protects journalists' rights to free speech, but it also protects the public's right to information. However, the courts have begun to take away these rights. It began with high school publications in

(50) 1988. During the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against students and gave school officials the ability to censor student publications without violating the First Amendment. High school journalists now have the right to only print what the officials deem appropriate. This basically means only the good stuff about the school will be published. Therefore, high school publications are no longer a form of

(60) journalism, but rather, an expense free form of public relations for high schools. This is okay, though, because they are only high school students. All they need to learn right now is how to write using proper journalistic form, right? Preparing for an actual career as a journalist does not come until college. 
The only problem with this is that, as of 1997, student publications at state-supported institutions of higher learning across America

(70) are threatened by censorship as well. In Kincaid v. Gibson, U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood ruled that administrators at Kentucky State University could censor the publication of a yearbook because it was of poor quality. This ruling could set a precedent that would allow all colleges across America to censor student publications. The goal of college is to prepare people for a career. If the rules of professional journalists do not apply to

(80) college journalists, these students will not be prepared for the job they have ahead of them. Students accustomed to being merely public relations agents for their college will carry this forum to professional publications and affect every citizen of the United States. As the old saying goes, "it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks," so these professional journalists will become public relations agents for the United States Government, thus giving

(90) the public a censored version of the truth. 
So this brings us back to you, 100 years from now. You have the opportunity to stay. Sure the technology is nice, but staying would mean settling with a life of frivolity. The people here do not realize they are cheated every day by their local governments. They do not even know their president died two years ago because the government thought that information would create chaos among

(100) the masses. You also have the option of returning to your own time with this new knowledge and continue your life as if nothing had changed. You know that if you go back you will have to take advantage of your dying freedom of speech to inform the public of what could happen because of censorship and increased governmental control. So, do you go or do you stay? Thomas Jefferson perhaps answered this question the best

 (110) when he said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

  1. Dangers of Censorship

  2. Unconditional freedom

  3. Newspaper over government

  4. Government versus Newspapers

  5. Freedom and The First Amendment

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

(1) is the correct option as the passage deals with the drawbacks and dangerous that we can face in the future, due to censorship.

Multiple choice
  1. If the inference is ‘Definitely True’, i.e. it properly follows from the given facts

  2. If the inference is ‘Probably True’ though not ‘definitely true’ in the light of the facts given

  3. If the 'Data are Inadequate', i.e. from the facts given you cannot say whether the inference is likely to be true or false

  4. If the inference is ‘Probably False’ though not ‘definitely false’ in the light of the facts given

  5. If the inference is ‘Definitely False’, i.e. it cannot possibly be drawn from the facts given or it contradicts the given facts

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The passage clearly states that agriculture's contribution 'has been more than 40 percent since independence' and 'contributed about half of the national output' in the 1950s. This directly supports the inference that agriculture contributed more than all other activities combined during that period. The data is explicit and supports a 'Definitely True' conclusion.

Multiple choice
  1. If the inference is ‘Definitely true’, i.e. it properly follows from the given facts

  2. If the inference is ‘Probably true’ though not ‘definitely true’ in the light of the facts given

  3. If the 'Data is inadequate', i.e. from the facts given you cannot say whether the inference is likely to be true or false

  4. If the inference is ‘Probably false’ though not ‘definitely false’ in the light of the facts given

  5. If the inference is ‘Definitely false’, i.e. it cannot possibly be drawn from the facts given or it contradicts the given facts

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

'In the overall economy of India, agriculture is the largest sector of economic activity. It plays a crucial role in the country's economic development.' The above statement depicts the similar meaning as is depicted by the statement given in the question. 

Multiple choice
  1. If the inference is ‘Definitely true’, i.e. it properly follows from the given facts

  2. If the inference is ‘Probably true’ though not ‘definitely true’ in the light of the facts given

  3. If the 'Data is inadequate', i.e. from the facts given you cannot say whether the inference is likely to be true or false

  4. If the inference is ‘Probably false’ though not ‘definitely false’ in the light of the facts given

  5. If the inference is ‘Definitely false’, i.e. it cannot possibly be drawn from the facts given or it contradicts the given facts

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

No information regarding the contribution of agriculture sector in recent years is given.

Multiple choice
  1. If the inference is ‘Definitely true’, i.e. it properly follows from the given facts

  2. If the inference is ‘Probably true’ though not ‘definitely true’ in the light of the facts given

  3. If the 'Data is inadequate', i.e. from the facts given you cannot say whether the inference is likely to be true or false

  4. If the inference is ‘Probably false’ though not ‘definitely false’ in the light of the facts given

  5. If the inference is ‘Definitely false’, i.e. it cannot possibly be drawn from the facts given or it contradicts the given facts

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

'It accounts for the largest share to the national income. The share of the various agricultural commodities, annual husbandry and ancillary activities has been more than 40 percent since independence.' This doesn't mean that agriculture is the only source of income in India.