Reading Comprehension

Which of the following are valid inferences that can be drawn from the passage?

(i) Mr. Miliband believes that the only problem with the current A level examination system is the lack of differentiation amongst the best candidates. (ii) One of the ways in which the examination system is being tried to be improved is to create a better differentiation amongst the best candidates. (iii) The author does not believe that A level students should necessarily be prepared for the intensive three year degree courses in universities. (iv) More coursework means less weightage to examinations and hence better grades in the examination. (v) The author believes that people in general have lost faith in the A-Grade results.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

School exams must do a few seemingly simple things. They should show what has been learnt and who has done best, with grades that are both precise and meaningful. They should be rigorous, but also fair. Standards should stay steady over time, but the curriculum should be up to date. The courses should be accessible and attractive, yet cover all the ground that universities and employers require. Such contradictions guarantee dissatisfaction, especially as good results in the A- levels taken in the final school years play a huge role taken in university admissions - and thus future earning power. So in August, which should be the quietest month in the school year, there is an annual panic about Britain’s education system.

This week’s A level results showed a record pass-level of 96%, with a record 22.4% gaining the top A grade and prompted the usual howls of dismay about dumbing-down and lack of differentiation. A government minister, David Miliband, said the row was “a pantomime, not a discussion”. The threefold increase in students getting two passes or more, over the past 30 years, was a sign of improving education, he said. And those who criticised it were elitists defending “the old order”. Yet, even Mr. Miliband agrees that there is a need for change,  in the way, the best candidates are graded. Places at the top dozen universities are oversubscribed, sometimes hugely, by candidates with a plethora of A grades. It’s a small problem compared with others — such as the fact that a quarter of schoolchildren never learn to read and count properly- but a politically important one.
          One plan is to split the A grade into four sub-categories. Another is to publish the percentage marks scored, or to show the grade gained on each bit of exam. Such ploys might help to distinguish brilliant candidates from the merely clever. But not necessarily: exams are only a rough measure of ability, so it may be sensible to have broad categories rather than narrow ones. Some would like an extended essay, or a new A grade for those who answer the hardest questions. But whatever the system, the best schools will find ways of getting their candidates to do well. No system can achieve both social engineering and academic excellence.
      What about the wider charge, that A levels have become too easy? The biggest changes have been in the way the exams work. Good exam technique matters less. Retakes are freely allowed and questions are less cryptic, with more signposting about how to answer them. The aim is to find out what candidates know, rather than what they don’t. There is a great deal more coursework with all the attendant dangers of plagiarism and cramming.
Given all that, and how much more exam-centred pupils and teachers have become, it would be odd if results did not improve. In fact, they have done so since 1982, suggesting that the trend is not a deliberate political plot. Educational results do generally improve as countries get richer. But it is also true that content has changed, and not always for the better. This is particularly true in the GCSE exams, taken at 16, which are widely seen as un-demanding. But there are problems at A level too; it’s possible to get an A in Maths without a solid grasp of  Calculus, for example. That used to be essential.
Such shortcomings certainly impose strain on the next stage in the system. A survey this week showed that 90% of academics thought A levels had become less demanding. In the highly rated actuarial science course at London’s city University, for example, the first term of the first year is spent filling in gaps in Maths that students used to learn at A level: chiefly Geometry, Vectors and Calculus. The university- level Maths that actuaries need is crammed into two terms of the first year.
Remedial courses are widespread, but not yet very burdensome, says Universities UK, a lobby group. A-levels no longer dovetail neatly into the intensive three-year degree course that is still British universities’ main offering. But it may well be better to leave Universities to plug specific gaps, rather than expect all A-level candidates in, say, Maths, to learn things that only a few will need. In the end, American style levels of participation in higher education will require American- style flexibility, with more part- time degrees and greater use of credits, and a greater financial contribution from the student.
Even if the universities complaints are largely overblown, the other big constituency – employers – is still unhappy. They once saw A – levels as a solid signal of achievement, but many now say they distrust them. There is evidence that some basic skills are becoming patchier. SHL, the country’s largest provider of private tests, has seen a steady decline in the numerical and verbal reasoning abilities of graduate-level applicants. Because there are a lot more graduates than there used to be, it is not wholly surprising that standards have dropped a bit. But there’s no doubt that faith in the system is dented. In the end, arguments about declining standards are beside the point. No exam system imaginable could provide all the information that A-levels are supposed to signal. Some sensible tweaks are possible: more differentiation of the very brightest, extra marks for good grammar and spelling in essays, a larger core curriculum in Maths, fewer resits and less coursework, and less narrow specialisation. But in the end, the best exam system will be the one that matters less than the education it seeks to measure, not more.

What according to the author could be the reason that people tend to get comforted while talking to their sisters?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

“Having a Sister Makes You Happier”: that was the headline of a recent article about a study finding that adolescents who have a sister are less likely to report such feelings as “I am unhappy, sad or depressed” and “I feel like no one loves me.”
These findings are no fluke; other studies have come to similar conclusions. But why would having a sister make you happier?
The usual answer — that girls and women are more likely than boys and men to talk about emotions — is somehow unsatisfying, especially to a researcher like me. Much of my work over the years has developed the premise that women’s styles of friendship and conversation aren’t inherently better than men’s, simply different.
A man once told me that he had spent a day with a friend who was going through a divorce. When he returned home, his wife asked how his friend was coping. He replied: “I don’t know. We didn’t talk about it.” His wife chastised him. Obviously, she said, the friend needed to talk about what he was going through. This made the man feel bad. So he was relieved to read in my book “You Just Don’t Understand” (Ballantine, 1990) that doing things together can be a comfort in itself, another way to show caring. Asking about the divorce might have made his friend feel worse by reminding him of it, and expressing concern could have come across as condescending. The man who told me this was himself comforted to be reassured that his instincts hadn’t been wrong and he hadn’t let his friend down.
But if talking about problems isn’t necessary for comfort, then having sisters shouldn’t make men happier than having brothers. Yet the recent study — by Laura Padilla - Walker and her colleagues at Brigham Young University — is supported by others.
Last year, for example, the British psychologists Lis Wright and Tony Cassidy found that young people who had grown up with at least one sister tended to be happier and more optimistic, especially if their parents had divorced. Another British researcher, Judy Dunn, found a similar pattern among older adults.
So what is going on?
My own recent research about sisters suggests a more subtle dynamic. I interviewed more than 100 women about their sisters, but if they also had brothers, I asked them to compare. Most said they talked to their sisters more often, at greater length and, yes, about more personal topics. This often meant that they felt closer to their sisters, but not always.
One woman, for example, says she talks for hours by phone to her two brothers as well as her two sisters. But the topics differ. She talks to her sisters about their personal lives; with her brothers she discusses history, geography and books. And, she added, one brother calls her at 5 a.m. as a prank.
A prank? Is this communication? Well, yes — it reminds her that he’s thinking of her. And talking for hours creates and reinforces connections with both brothers and sisters, regardless of what they talk about.
A student in my class recounted a situation that shows how this can work. When their family dog died, the siblings (a brother and three sisters) all called one another. The sisters told one another how much they missed the dog and how terrible they felt. The brother expressed concern for everyone in the family but said nothing about what he himself was feeling.
My student didn’t doubt that her brother felt the same as his sisters; he just didn’t say it directly. And I’ll bet that having the phone conversations served exactly the same purpose for him as the sisters’ calls did for them: providing comfort in the face of their shared loss.
So the key to why having sisters makes people happier — men as well as women — may lie not in the kind of talk they exchange but in the fact of talk. If men, like women, talk more often to their sisters than to their brothers, that could explain why sisters make them happier. The interviews I conducted with women reinforced this insight. Many told me that they don’t talk to their sisters about personal problems, either. An example is Colleen, a widow in her 80s who told me that she’d been very close to her unmarried sister throughout their lives, though they never discussed their personal problems. An image of these sisters has remained indelible in my mind.
Late in life, the sister came to live with Colleen and her husband. Colleen recalled that each morning after her husband got up to make coffee, her sister would stop by Colleen’s bedroom to say good morning. Colleen would urge her sister to join her in bed. As they sat up in bed side by side, holding hands, Colleen and her sister would “just talk.”
That’s another kind of conversation that many women engage in which baffles many men: talk about details of their daily lives, like the sweater they found on sale — details, you might say, as insignificant as those about last night’s ballgame which can baffle women when they overhear men talking. These seemingly pointless conversations are as comforting to some women as “troubles talk” conversations are to others.
So maybe it’s true that talk is the reason having a sister makes you happier, but it needn’t be talk about emotions. When women told me they talk to their sisters more often, at greater length and about more personal topics, I suspect it’s that first element — more often — that is crucial rather than the last.
This makes sense to me as a linguist who truly believes that women’s ways of talking are not inherently better than men’s. It also feels right to me as a woman with two sisters — one who likes to have long conversations about feelings and one who doesn’t, but who both make me happier.

Which of the following statements is David Miliband likely to agree with?

(i) That there should be no pantomime, but a discussion of the issue of A level examinations. (ii) Those who are against the A-level grading system are dogmatic and not pragmatic. (iii) The current results are a signal of improvement in the education system but not a signal of decline of educational standards. (iv) The A level examination system should have an improved distinction between the best candidates.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

School exams must do a few seemingly simple things. They should show what has been learnt and who has done best, with grades that are both precise and meaningful. They should be rigorous, but also fair. Standards should stay steady over time, but the curriculum should be up to date. The courses should be accessible and attractive, yet cover all the ground that universities and employers require. Such contradictions guarantee dissatisfaction, especially as good results in the A- levels taken in the final school years play a huge role taken in university admissions - and thus future earning power. So in August, which should be the quietest month in the school year, there is an annual panic about Britain’s education system.

This week’s A level results showed a record pass-level of 96%, with a record 22.4% gaining the top A grade and prompted the usual howls of dismay about dumbing-down and lack of differentiation. A government minister, David Miliband, said the row was “a pantomime, not a discussion”. The threefold increase in students getting two passes or more, over the past 30 years, was a sign of improving education, he said. And those who criticised it were elitists defending “the old order”. Yet, even Mr. Miliband agrees that there is a need for change,  in the way, the best candidates are graded. Places at the top dozen universities are oversubscribed, sometimes hugely, by candidates with a plethora of A grades. It’s a small problem compared with others — such as the fact that a quarter of schoolchildren never learn to read and count properly- but a politically important one.
          One plan is to split the A grade into four sub-categories. Another is to publish the percentage marks scored, or to show the grade gained on each bit of exam. Such ploys might help to distinguish brilliant candidates from the merely clever. But not necessarily: exams are only a rough measure of ability, so it may be sensible to have broad categories rather than narrow ones. Some would like an extended essay, or a new A grade for those who answer the hardest questions. But whatever the system, the best schools will find ways of getting their candidates to do well. No system can achieve both social engineering and academic excellence.
      What about the wider charge, that A levels have become too easy? The biggest changes have been in the way the exams work. Good exam technique matters less. Retakes are freely allowed and questions are less cryptic, with more signposting about how to answer them. The aim is to find out what candidates know, rather than what they don’t. There is a great deal more coursework with all the attendant dangers of plagiarism and cramming.
Given all that, and how much more exam-centred pupils and teachers have become, it would be odd if results did not improve. In fact, they have done so since 1982, suggesting that the trend is not a deliberate political plot. Educational results do generally improve as countries get richer. But it is also true that content has changed, and not always for the better. This is particularly true in the GCSE exams, taken at 16, which are widely seen as un-demanding. But there are problems at A level too; it’s possible to get an A in Maths without a solid grasp of  Calculus, for example. That used to be essential.
Such shortcomings certainly impose strain on the next stage in the system. A survey this week showed that 90% of academics thought A levels had become less demanding. In the highly rated actuarial science course at London’s city University, for example, the first term of the first year is spent filling in gaps in Maths that students used to learn at A level: chiefly Geometry, Vectors and Calculus. The university- level Maths that actuaries need is crammed into two terms of the first year.
Remedial courses are widespread, but not yet very burdensome, says Universities UK, a lobby group. A-levels no longer dovetail neatly into the intensive three-year degree course that is still British universities’ main offering. But it may well be better to leave Universities to plug specific gaps, rather than expect all A-level candidates in, say, Maths, to learn things that only a few will need. In the end, American style levels of participation in higher education will require American- style flexibility, with more part- time degrees and greater use of credits, and a greater financial contribution from the student.
Even if the universities complaints are largely overblown, the other big constituency – employers – is still unhappy. They once saw A – levels as a solid signal of achievement, but many now say they distrust them. There is evidence that some basic skills are becoming patchier. SHL, the country’s largest provider of private tests, has seen a steady decline in the numerical and verbal reasoning abilities of graduate-level applicants. Because there are a lot more graduates than there used to be, it is not wholly surprising that standards have dropped a bit. But there’s no doubt that faith in the system is dented. In the end, arguments about declining standards are beside the point. No exam system imaginable could provide all the information that A-levels are supposed to signal. Some sensible tweaks are possible: more differentiation of the very brightest, extra marks for good grammar and spelling in essays, a larger core curriculum in Maths, fewer resits and less coursework, and less narrow specialisation. But in the end, the best exam system will be the one that matters less than the education it seeks to measure, not more.

“It’s a small problem compared with others such as …. But a politically important one”. Which problem is being referred to in the sentence of reference?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

School exams must do a few seemingly simple things. They should show what has been learnt and who has done best, with grades that are both precise and meaningful. They should be rigorous, but also fair. Standards should stay steady over time, but the curriculum should be up to date. The courses should be accessible and attractive, yet cover all the ground that universities and employers require. Such contradictions guarantee dissatisfaction, especially as good results in the A- levels taken in the final school years play a huge role taken in university admissions - and thus future earning power. So in August, which should be the quietest month in the school year, there is an annual panic about Britain’s education system.

This week’s A level results showed a record pass-level of 96%, with a record 22.4% gaining the top A grade and prompted the usual howls of dismay about dumbing-down and lack of differentiation. A government minister, David Miliband, said the row was “a pantomime, not a discussion”. The threefold increase in students getting two passes or more, over the past 30 years, was a sign of improving education, he said. And those who criticised it were elitists defending “the old order”. Yet, even Mr. Miliband agrees that there is a need for change,  in the way, the best candidates are graded. Places at the top dozen universities are oversubscribed, sometimes hugely, by candidates with a plethora of A grades. It’s a small problem compared with others — such as the fact that a quarter of schoolchildren never learn to read and count properly- but a politically important one.
          One plan is to split the A grade into four sub-categories. Another is to publish the percentage marks scored, or to show the grade gained on each bit of exam. Such ploys might help to distinguish brilliant candidates from the merely clever. But not necessarily: exams are only a rough measure of ability, so it may be sensible to have broad categories rather than narrow ones. Some would like an extended essay, or a new A grade for those who answer the hardest questions. But whatever the system, the best schools will find ways of getting their candidates to do well. No system can achieve both social engineering and academic excellence.
      What about the wider charge, that A levels have become too easy? The biggest changes have been in the way the exams work. Good exam technique matters less. Retakes are freely allowed and questions are less cryptic, with more signposting about how to answer them. The aim is to find out what candidates know, rather than what they don’t. There is a great deal more coursework with all the attendant dangers of plagiarism and cramming.
Given all that, and how much more exam-centred pupils and teachers have become, it would be odd if results did not improve. In fact, they have done so since 1982, suggesting that the trend is not a deliberate political plot. Educational results do generally improve as countries get richer. But it is also true that content has changed, and not always for the better. This is particularly true in the GCSE exams, taken at 16, which are widely seen as un-demanding. But there are problems at A level too; it’s possible to get an A in Maths without a solid grasp of  Calculus, for example. That used to be essential.
Such shortcomings certainly impose strain on the next stage in the system. A survey this week showed that 90% of academics thought A levels had become less demanding. In the highly rated actuarial science course at London’s city University, for example, the first term of the first year is spent filling in gaps in Maths that students used to learn at A level: chiefly Geometry, Vectors and Calculus. The university- level Maths that actuaries need is crammed into two terms of the first year.
Remedial courses are widespread, but not yet very burdensome, says Universities UK, a lobby group. A-levels no longer dovetail neatly into the intensive three-year degree course that is still British universities’ main offering. But it may well be better to leave Universities to plug specific gaps, rather than expect all A-level candidates in, say, Maths, to learn things that only a few will need. In the end, American style levels of participation in higher education will require American- style flexibility, with more part- time degrees and greater use of credits, and a greater financial contribution from the student.
Even if the universities complaints are largely overblown, the other big constituency – employers – is still unhappy. They once saw A – levels as a solid signal of achievement, but many now say they distrust them. There is evidence that some basic skills are becoming patchier. SHL, the country’s largest provider of private tests, has seen a steady decline in the numerical and verbal reasoning abilities of graduate-level applicants. Because there are a lot more graduates than there used to be, it is not wholly surprising that standards have dropped a bit. But there’s no doubt that faith in the system is dented. In the end, arguments about declining standards are beside the point. No exam system imaginable could provide all the information that A-levels are supposed to signal. Some sensible tweaks are possible: more differentiation of the very brightest, extra marks for good grammar and spelling in essays, a larger core curriculum in Maths, fewer resits and less coursework, and less narrow specialisation. But in the end, the best exam system will be the one that matters less than the education it seeks to measure, not more.

In the start of the passage, the author uses the phrase ‘miasma of obfuscation’ to throw light on

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

SOMETHING has stirred in the electoral swamp. From beneath the fog of infantile rows over “efficiency savings”, and the miasma of obfuscation over the fiscal deficit—not to mention the centrist convergence that has beset British politics for a decade—a bona fide argument has finally emerged. Its lineaments were sketched by the election manifestos published this week.

Despite other signs of its senescence, labour hasn’t run out of ideas. Its manifesto contains lots of micro-initiatives and a central, organising theme. It is the same one that the party began peddling, with less substantiation, at the time of the financial crisis of 2008: the virtues of a benevolent, active state, especially during economic strain. Thus Labour’s manifesto offers an “activist industrial strategy”, some (modest) enhancements of the welfare safety-net and legal “guarantees” of public-service performance.

There are nuances, of course. The manifesto hints at the market-based reform agenda that Gordon Brown inherited from Tony Blair, about which Mr Brown has often seemed ambivalent. Labour (again) pledges freedom for hospitals, plus takeovers of failing schools (potentially triggered by parents) and police forces. It promises more “voice and choice” for citizens. But while those nouns rhyme, they are distinct, and Labour is ultimately offering more of the former than the latter: new ways to register discontent and exert pressure, within a system in which the state is the final arbiter and enforcer of standards and remedies.

Meanwhile, from beneath the swirl of off-putting jargon that had shrouded it (the “post-bureaucratic age” and the rest), the Conservatives have extracted a core manifesto theme too: the “Big Society”. Their basic case is that the state should devolve (some) power to local authorities and communities, and outsource the provision of more services to competing social enterprises and charities. They advocate new state-funded but independent schools; the establishment of more co-operatives by NHS employees; the tendering of more welfare-to-work services to private providers. They would introduce elected police commissioners, more local referendums, and so on.

This pitch likewise has glitches and qualifications. Most importantly, it is a plan to shrink the set of tasks the state itself performs, not those for which it undertakes to pay. So it isn’t merely, as the Tories’ opponents maintain, a return to a cruel era of inadequate voluntarism—but nor is it a credible strategy for saving taxpayers’ money, atleast to begin with.

Moreover, David Cameron’s vision of a humbler state is clouded by his wish to extend its reach into private relationships, via his silly and tokenistic tax break for some married couples. That is a flash of the kind of irrational authoritarianism that warps much American conservatism and still lurks in many Tory breasts. Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, accurately called the marriage policy “patronising drivel”. (The Lib-Dem manifesto overlaps with the Tories’ on schools and police reform, though Mr Clegg’s party would give local councils more financial clout, and with Labour’s on health-care guarantees.)

All the same, in essence, this is the debate: State versus Society; Voice versus  Choice. Thoughtful Labour politicians prefer to cast the stand-off as their “smart” state versus the Tories’ “minimal” one. But they don’t dispute the essential dichotomy.

Two questions follow. Which prospectus is better? And—by no means the same thing—which is likely to be more popular?

This much is plain: Labour’s statism has failed to crack the country’s toughest social problems, such as its pockets of entrenched worklessness and educational inequalities. Mr Brown’s fondness for the lexicon of “grand bargains” and “national councils”, plus his habit of passing optimistic statutes—mandating the repair of the public finances or an end to child poverty—suggest an ingrained and inflated view of the state’s redemptive power.

But the Tories’ revamped communitarianism has weaknesses too. The most obvious is that it elides two phenomena that may prove unconnected: a consumerist desire for ever-improving public services, and people’s willingness actually to do something to improve them. Are community groups really going to spring up to, say (the Tories do), manage local libraries? It is doubtful whether the incentives Mr Cameron is offering are strong enough to galvanise them. Indeed, his party’s faith in an imminent frenzy of civic activism rather contradicts another of its mantras—that British society is “broken”. It is also hard to see how, within their new competitive dispensation, the Tories will extend payment by results to all the areas they say they will. That model makes sense for prisoner rehabilitation; but the outcomes of Sure Start (which ministers to babies and toddlers) might be harder to measure. And Bagehot wonders about the wisdom of politicising policing as crassly as elected commissioners might.

So the Tory method might fail too, though it would fail differently. As for popularity: if it worked, it would necessarily produce wild and controversial variations in quality of service. Fear of the resulting angst is one reason why governments have tended to hoard power rather than distribute it. Perhaps the Tories would have the grit to withstand the backlash—that is, assuming they get elected: just as voters may not rush to set up co-ops, the prospect of doing so may not entice many to vote Tory. Labour’s hunch that the crisis and recession have endeared state protection to some Britons (never an overly ideological bunch) may be valid. One senior Labour figure wryly remarks that the country wants his party’s policies, but the Tories’ leader. In reality, more guttural instincts will probably determine this election’s outcome, as usual. For those who care to notice it, however, Britain now has a meaningful philosophical choice.

In the passage the following quote “And when you are spoiled ------------------ sins were increased” has been quoted to elucidate which of the following?

(i) The attitude of China towards the U.S. and also of the U.S. towards its allies, where they have shunned India up till now. (ii) The imminent fate of the U.S. which has up till now been fawned upon by its allies but sooner or later is bound to be shunned by the same. (iii) India which is a U.S. ally now is doing a wrong thing and needs to quickly make amends otherwise it will be too late and it will reach the same fate that is destined for the U.S.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

With nearly 1.1 billion inhabitants, India is the second largest country on earth in population, and seventh largest in geographical area, over 1.1 million square miles. This is almost 1,000 people for every square mile of area nationwide—much denser than even China.

Since achieving independence from British rule in 1947, it has seen its share of conflict, struggle and setbacks. Although India still faces many challenges, it is now poised to reach a higher position on the world scene than at any previous time.

The Indian economy has grown an average of around 6% annually over the past decade and 8% per year over the past three years—among the fastest rates in the world. It boasts of an emerging middle class and increasing gross domestic product, exports, employment and foreign investment. This is complemented by a roaring stock market (index value up by a third in 2005 and by 200% since 2001), low external debt and large foreign exchange reserves. Recent visits from leaders and officials from the United States, France, Germany and Russia have spotlighted India’s rise. These wealthier nations see India as a trading partner with enormous potential.
Although it has not yet matched the financial performance of China—currently the fastest-growing economy in the world—according to some analysts, India shows even more long-term potential for rapid growth. Leaders from both nations have discussed the creation of a Chinese-Indian common market based on the European Union model. Although only an idea at present, if realised, it would be the largest economic system in the world, home for about 2.5 billion consumers—almost 40% of the human race (or 3 of every 8 people on earth)!
India’s growth becomes more impressive in light of the fact that it is driven by a fraction of its population. Much of the nation remains a picture of rural poverty. Nearly all foreign investment in India goes to its six most urban states, with 22 other less developed states virtually ignored. This gap between city and country is keenly felt in places such as Gurgaon, a suburb of the Indian capital New Delhi: “In a land still plagued by deep poverty and backwardness, Gurgaon has become a renowned home of international call centres, business-processing operations, and information technology firms. There are gleaming, glass-paned high-tech towers, condominium blocks, multiplexes, and shopping malls, where Indians dine at Ruby Tuesday, browse for Samsung electronics, or kick the tires at a Toyota, Ford, or Chevy dealer. If one overlooks the dusty pockets of poverty nearby, a few water buffaloes picking at garbage near shanty towns, the look is more Southern California office park than the India of yore”.
Despite the problems seen in India’s underdeveloped countryside—for example, massive unmet infrastructure needs; more illiterate citizens than any other single nation—there are several areas in which the nation excels. These particularly specialised talents have allowed a tiny percentage of the populace—perhaps less than 1%—to spearhead its move toward a higher standing in the world order.
India’s economy is divided between agriculture (which accounts for a quarter of the gross national product), manufacturing (constituting another quarter) and the high-tech service sector, which now makes up fully half of the gross national product. Striving to become a “knowledge superpower,” it hopes to skip the intermediate step of industrial development that has preceded other nations’ march into the Information Age.
Scientific and information technology companies from around the world are opening research and development labs in India—more than 100 in the past five years. One mainstay of the new economy is software development, with ever more global firms outsourcing to India the time intensive work of programming. Businesses worldwide also rely on the country for customer service—phone calls from around the world are directed to call centres in Indian cities such as Bangalore. Other developing markets include pharmaceutical and biotechnology research. Currently, the majority of top American companies send some of their IT work to India, and there is little evidence of a slowdown in this trend.
The business world is also looking in India’s direction. Graduates of the nation’s business programs are in high demand among multinational corporations, with each graduating class commanding a higher average salary than the one before. Those who complete MBA degrees at schools such as the Indian Institute of Management can now expect starting salaries ranging from \$75,000 (USD) at Indian firms to over \$200,000 outside the country. This is comparable to graduates of top American business schools such as Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth—testimony to the market value of Indian talent in this area of study. As its clout has grown, India has placed a high priority on improving its military capabilities as well. New Delhi has not joined 187 other nations in signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and appeared on the world’s radar screen as a nuclear-armed nation in May 1998, with the detonation of five warheads in the desert near the border of Pakistan. This disturbed many governments around the globe, naturally including that of Pakistan, which responded with nuclear tests of its own.
This stand-off was the turning point that began India’s pursuit of a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. According toThe Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, additional nuclear missile tests occurred in the summer of 2004; since then, the Indian Defense Ministry has earmarked $2 billion annually to build 300 to 400 weapons over the next 5 to 7 years.
India maintains a “no first strike” nuclear policy, and asserts that it only seeks enough nuclear weaponry to effectively deter aggressors. The U.S. President George W. Bush, during a March 2006 visit with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, announced cooperation between the two countries on civilian nuclear programs and had previously called India a “responsible” nuclear nation (Der Spiegel). These measures drew an American diplomatic line between India and other nations that have nixed participation in the NPT, such as North Korea and Iran. Whatever its nuclear aspirations, the country has a long military shopping list. Last year, it announced plans to build the first aircraft carrier ever put to sea by a developing nation, and to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. America has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels, combat aircraft, patrol aircraft and helicopters to India. One former U.S. ambassador to India opined, “Of course, we should sell advanced weaponry to India. The millionman Indian army actually fights, unlike the post-modern militaries of many of our European allies”. Many have compared India’s pattern of growth to its neighbour, China. The countries have much in common— physical borders, immense populations, similar challenges, ancient civilisations and quickly-rising economies. India also measures itself against China, coveting its economic power and international standing, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Though a degree of tension does remain between the two nations, with lingering memories of the brief 1962 war in which China soundly defeated India, the relationship between these two Asian giants is warming up. Trade between them is now increasing at a vigorous pace, and diplomatic relations are at a post-1962 highpoint. Chinese Prime Minister WenJiabao, during a recent visit to New Delhi, hailed cooperation between the two nations as the driving force of a new “Asian Century.” Indian Prime Minister Singh spoke of the potential for India and China to rearrange the world order by working together. Many have pointed out that their economic strengths seem to be tailor-made for a partnership. India seeks to be a major player in the computer software world in the same way that China is in the area of hardware. Cooperation between Beijing and New Delhi could prove a dominant force in the information technology market.
Both nations have a voracious appetite for natural resources, and a recent energy deal neatly symbolized the new Sino-Indian dynamic: India acquired a 20% share in the development of the largest onshore oil field in Iran. The venture happens to be operated and 50% owned by Sinopec—China’s state-run oil company.

However, India could seek to undercut China’s manufacturing prices (as China did with many Southeast Asian countries in the 1990s). But it is more likely to pursue a different segment of the world market by producing higherquality goods, as well as entirely different products.

Time will tell exactly how the relationship will mix competition and cooperation. These two nations both aspire to “first-world” status—and economic gains could be the incentive for a more tightly allied Asia.

With its newfound power, India faces a dilemma: Should it ultimately pursue closer ties with Western nations or with other Asian countries?

After India gained independence, its first Prime Minister spoke of an Asian renaissance, envisioning a tightly bound continent changing the post-World War II landscape. Though premature at the time, the idea is now more feasible than any time since the Cold War era. Along with the improving relations with China, India is also friendly with Russia and Japan. And, as of 2004, the value of India’s trade with other Asian nations surpassed that of exchange with the United States and Western Europe put together.
But the United States—after courting India’s arch-rival Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror after the September 11 attacks—is now distancing itself somewhat from the current Islamabad regime led by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, focusing on India instead. India’s common ground with the U.S. includes liberal democratic government, capitalism and, among the more educated urban residents, the English language.
       However, America’s courting of India is viewed by some as a way to limit and contain Chinese influence in Asia. Some Indians resent this perception of their nation as a pawn of the U.S. Though they appreciate the American lifestyle and culture, much of the Indian population still sees this lone superpower as a bully. While it may be able to dance with both partners alternately for a while, India will eventually be forced to choose. Which way will this nation turn? We need not merely guess where world events will ultimately lead. While many of the details remain to be seen, the overall framework of the future has been recorded in advance in one book—The Holy Bible.
       In nations such as India, the size of population alone pulls them toward superpower status. Bible prophecy describes global power blocs—superpowers, or groups of superpowers—that will be prominent at the end of the age, shortly before Jesus Christ returns. These powers will be based in the north (Europe), the south (the Arab world), and the “kings of the East”—a group of Asian nations that will band together, eventually fielding a standing army of two hundred million!
The nations of the West, including the United States, are headed for hard times as a result of their national and personal sins against the God that inspired The Bible. He reveals that they will be forsaken by their allies, called “lovers” in Scripture:
“And when you are spoiled, what will you do? Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, though you rend your face with painting, in vain shall you make yourself fair; your lovers will despise you, they will seek your life…All your lovers have forgotten you; they seek you not; for I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of your iniquity; because your sins were increased”. India is today one of these “lovers,” but one that will soon prove to be something very different. So will other nations that Western countries now consider to be allies. Keep watching India’s growth toward superpower status—just one part of the inevitable rise of Asia!

What can be said about the writing style of the author?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

With nearly 1.1 billion inhabitants, India is the second largest country on earth in population, and seventh largest in geographical area, over 1.1 million square miles. This is almost 1,000 people for every square mile of area nationwide—much denser than even China.

Since achieving independence from British rule in 1947, it has seen its share of conflict, struggle and setbacks. Although India still faces many challenges, it is now poised to reach a higher position on the world scene than at any previous time.

The Indian economy has grown an average of around 6% annually over the past decade and 8% per year over the past three years—among the fastest rates in the world. It boasts of an emerging middle class and increasing gross domestic product, exports, employment and foreign investment. This is complemented by a roaring stock market (index value up by a third in 2005 and by 200% since 2001), low external debt and large foreign exchange reserves. Recent visits from leaders and officials from the United States, France, Germany and Russia have spotlighted India’s rise. These wealthier nations see India as a trading partner with enormous potential.
Although it has not yet matched the financial performance of China—currently the fastest-growing economy in the world—according to some analysts, India shows even more long-term potential for rapid growth. Leaders from both nations have discussed the creation of a Chinese-Indian common market based on the European Union model. Although only an idea at present, if realised, it would be the largest economic system in the world, home for about 2.5 billion consumers—almost 40% of the human race (or 3 of every 8 people on earth)!
India’s growth becomes more impressive in light of the fact that it is driven by a fraction of its population. Much of the nation remains a picture of rural poverty. Nearly all foreign investment in India goes to its six most urban states, with 22 other less developed states virtually ignored. This gap between city and country is keenly felt in places such as Gurgaon, a suburb of the Indian capital New Delhi: “In a land still plagued by deep poverty and backwardness, Gurgaon has become a renowned home of international call centres, business-processing operations, and information technology firms. There are gleaming, glass-paned high-tech towers, condominium blocks, multiplexes, and shopping malls, where Indians dine at Ruby Tuesday, browse for Samsung electronics, or kick the tires at a Toyota, Ford, or Chevy dealer. If one overlooks the dusty pockets of poverty nearby, a few water buffaloes picking at garbage near shanty towns, the look is more Southern California office park than the India of yore”.
Despite the problems seen in India’s underdeveloped countryside—for example, massive unmet infrastructure needs; more illiterate citizens than any other single nation—there are several areas in which the nation excels. These particularly specialised talents have allowed a tiny percentage of the populace—perhaps less than 1%—to spearhead its move toward a higher standing in the world order.
India’s economy is divided between agriculture (which accounts for a quarter of the gross national product), manufacturing (constituting another quarter) and the high-tech service sector, which now makes up fully half of the gross national product. Striving to become a “knowledge superpower,” it hopes to skip the intermediate step of industrial development that has preceded other nations’ march into the Information Age.
Scientific and information technology companies from around the world are opening research and development labs in India—more than 100 in the past five years. One mainstay of the new economy is software development, with ever more global firms outsourcing to India the time intensive work of programming. Businesses worldwide also rely on the country for customer service—phone calls from around the world are directed to call centres in Indian cities such as Bangalore. Other developing markets include pharmaceutical and biotechnology research. Currently, the majority of top American companies send some of their IT work to India, and there is little evidence of a slowdown in this trend.
The business world is also looking in India’s direction. Graduates of the nation’s business programs are in high demand among multinational corporations, with each graduating class commanding a higher average salary than the one before. Those who complete MBA degrees at schools such as the Indian Institute of Management can now expect starting salaries ranging from \$75,000 (USD) at Indian firms to over \$200,000 outside the country. This is comparable to graduates of top American business schools such as Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth—testimony to the market value of Indian talent in this area of study. As its clout has grown, India has placed a high priority on improving its military capabilities as well. New Delhi has not joined 187 other nations in signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and appeared on the world’s radar screen as a nuclear-armed nation in May 1998, with the detonation of five warheads in the desert near the border of Pakistan. This disturbed many governments around the globe, naturally including that of Pakistan, which responded with nuclear tests of its own.
This stand-off was the turning point that began India’s pursuit of a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. According toThe Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, additional nuclear missile tests occurred in the summer of 2004; since then, the Indian Defense Ministry has earmarked $2 billion annually to build 300 to 400 weapons over the next 5 to 7 years.
India maintains a “no first strike” nuclear policy, and asserts that it only seeks enough nuclear weaponry to effectively deter aggressors. The U.S. President George W. Bush, during a March 2006 visit with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, announced cooperation between the two countries on civilian nuclear programs and had previously called India a “responsible” nuclear nation (Der Spiegel). These measures drew an American diplomatic line between India and other nations that have nixed participation in the NPT, such as North Korea and Iran. Whatever its nuclear aspirations, the country has a long military shopping list. Last year, it announced plans to build the first aircraft carrier ever put to sea by a developing nation, and to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. America has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels, combat aircraft, patrol aircraft and helicopters to India. One former U.S. ambassador to India opined, “Of course, we should sell advanced weaponry to India. The millionman Indian army actually fights, unlike the post-modern militaries of many of our European allies”. Many have compared India’s pattern of growth to its neighbour, China. The countries have much in common— physical borders, immense populations, similar challenges, ancient civilisations and quickly-rising economies. India also measures itself against China, coveting its economic power and international standing, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Though a degree of tension does remain between the two nations, with lingering memories of the brief 1962 war in which China soundly defeated India, the relationship between these two Asian giants is warming up. Trade between them is now increasing at a vigorous pace, and diplomatic relations are at a post-1962 highpoint. Chinese Prime Minister WenJiabao, during a recent visit to New Delhi, hailed cooperation between the two nations as the driving force of a new “Asian Century.” Indian Prime Minister Singh spoke of the potential for India and China to rearrange the world order by working together. Many have pointed out that their economic strengths seem to be tailor-made for a partnership. India seeks to be a major player in the computer software world in the same way that China is in the area of hardware. Cooperation between Beijing and New Delhi could prove a dominant force in the information technology market.
Both nations have a voracious appetite for natural resources, and a recent energy deal neatly symbolized the new Sino-Indian dynamic: India acquired a 20% share in the development of the largest onshore oil field in Iran. The venture happens to be operated and 50% owned by Sinopec—China’s state-run oil company.

However, India could seek to undercut China’s manufacturing prices (as China did with many Southeast Asian countries in the 1990s). But it is more likely to pursue a different segment of the world market by producing higherquality goods, as well as entirely different products.

Time will tell exactly how the relationship will mix competition and cooperation. These two nations both aspire to “first-world” status—and economic gains could be the incentive for a more tightly allied Asia.

With its newfound power, India faces a dilemma: Should it ultimately pursue closer ties with Western nations or with other Asian countries?

After India gained independence, its first Prime Minister spoke of an Asian renaissance, envisioning a tightly bound continent changing the post-World War II landscape. Though premature at the time, the idea is now more feasible than any time since the Cold War era. Along with the improving relations with China, India is also friendly with Russia and Japan. And, as of 2004, the value of India’s trade with other Asian nations surpassed that of exchange with the United States and Western Europe put together.
But the United States—after courting India’s arch-rival Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror after the September 11 attacks—is now distancing itself somewhat from the current Islamabad regime led by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, focusing on India instead. India’s common ground with the U.S. includes liberal democratic government, capitalism and, among the more educated urban residents, the English language.
       However, America’s courting of India is viewed by some as a way to limit and contain Chinese influence in Asia. Some Indians resent this perception of their nation as a pawn of the U.S. Though they appreciate the American lifestyle and culture, much of the Indian population still sees this lone superpower as a bully. While it may be able to dance with both partners alternately for a while, India will eventually be forced to choose. Which way will this nation turn? We need not merely guess where world events will ultimately lead. While many of the details remain to be seen, the overall framework of the future has been recorded in advance in one book—The Holy Bible.
       In nations such as India, the size of population alone pulls them toward superpower status. Bible prophecy describes global power blocs—superpowers, or groups of superpowers—that will be prominent at the end of the age, shortly before Jesus Christ returns. These powers will be based in the north (Europe), the south (the Arab world), and the “kings of the East”—a group of Asian nations that will band together, eventually fielding a standing army of two hundred million!
The nations of the West, including the United States, are headed for hard times as a result of their national and personal sins against the God that inspired The Bible. He reveals that they will be forsaken by their allies, called “lovers” in Scripture:
“And when you are spoiled, what will you do? Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, though you rend your face with painting, in vain shall you make yourself fair; your lovers will despise you, they will seek your life…All your lovers have forgotten you; they seek you not; for I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of your iniquity; because your sins were increased”. India is today one of these “lovers,” but one that will soon prove to be something very different. So will other nations that Western countries now consider to be allies. Keep watching India’s growth toward superpower status—just one part of the inevitable rise of Asia!

What are the underlying reasons, according to the author, for a tailor-made partnership between India and China?

(i) Both India and China are big consumers of natural reasons. (ii) Both can be complementary to each other visà-vis India in terms of software, as is China, in hardware. (iii) The Iran oil field deal seems to pave the way for more strategic alliances between the two countries. (iv) The price factor has also been dealt amicably by the two countries in the manufacturing scenario.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

With nearly 1.1 billion inhabitants, India is the second largest country on earth in population, and seventh largest in geographical area, over 1.1 million square miles. This is almost 1,000 people for every square mile of area nationwide—much denser than even China.

Since achieving independence from British rule in 1947, it has seen its share of conflict, struggle and setbacks. Although India still faces many challenges, it is now poised to reach a higher position on the world scene than at any previous time.

The Indian economy has grown an average of around 6% annually over the past decade and 8% per year over the past three years—among the fastest rates in the world. It boasts of an emerging middle class and increasing gross domestic product, exports, employment and foreign investment. This is complemented by a roaring stock market (index value up by a third in 2005 and by 200% since 2001), low external debt and large foreign exchange reserves. Recent visits from leaders and officials from the United States, France, Germany and Russia have spotlighted India’s rise. These wealthier nations see India as a trading partner with enormous potential.
Although it has not yet matched the financial performance of China—currently the fastest-growing economy in the world—according to some analysts, India shows even more long-term potential for rapid growth. Leaders from both nations have discussed the creation of a Chinese-Indian common market based on the European Union model. Although only an idea at present, if realised, it would be the largest economic system in the world, home for about 2.5 billion consumers—almost 40% of the human race (or 3 of every 8 people on earth)!
India’s growth becomes more impressive in light of the fact that it is driven by a fraction of its population. Much of the nation remains a picture of rural poverty. Nearly all foreign investment in India goes to its six most urban states, with 22 other less developed states virtually ignored. This gap between city and country is keenly felt in places such as Gurgaon, a suburb of the Indian capital New Delhi: “In a land still plagued by deep poverty and backwardness, Gurgaon has become a renowned home of international call centres, business-processing operations, and information technology firms. There are gleaming, glass-paned high-tech towers, condominium blocks, multiplexes, and shopping malls, where Indians dine at Ruby Tuesday, browse for Samsung electronics, or kick the tires at a Toyota, Ford, or Chevy dealer. If one overlooks the dusty pockets of poverty nearby, a few water buffaloes picking at garbage near shanty towns, the look is more Southern California office park than the India of yore”.
Despite the problems seen in India’s underdeveloped countryside—for example, massive unmet infrastructure needs; more illiterate citizens than any other single nation—there are several areas in which the nation excels. These particularly specialised talents have allowed a tiny percentage of the populace—perhaps less than 1%—to spearhead its move toward a higher standing in the world order.
India’s economy is divided between agriculture (which accounts for a quarter of the gross national product), manufacturing (constituting another quarter) and the high-tech service sector, which now makes up fully half of the gross national product. Striving to become a “knowledge superpower,” it hopes to skip the intermediate step of industrial development that has preceded other nations’ march into the Information Age.
Scientific and information technology companies from around the world are opening research and development labs in India—more than 100 in the past five years. One mainstay of the new economy is software development, with ever more global firms outsourcing to India the time intensive work of programming. Businesses worldwide also rely on the country for customer service—phone calls from around the world are directed to call centres in Indian cities such as Bangalore. Other developing markets include pharmaceutical and biotechnology research. Currently, the majority of top American companies send some of their IT work to India, and there is little evidence of a slowdown in this trend.
The business world is also looking in India’s direction. Graduates of the nation’s business programs are in high demand among multinational corporations, with each graduating class commanding a higher average salary than the one before. Those who complete MBA degrees at schools such as the Indian Institute of Management can now expect starting salaries ranging from \$75,000 (USD) at Indian firms to over \$200,000 outside the country. This is comparable to graduates of top American business schools such as Harvard, Stanford and Dartmouth—testimony to the market value of Indian talent in this area of study. As its clout has grown, India has placed a high priority on improving its military capabilities as well. New Delhi has not joined 187 other nations in signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and appeared on the world’s radar screen as a nuclear-armed nation in May 1998, with the detonation of five warheads in the desert near the border of Pakistan. This disturbed many governments around the globe, naturally including that of Pakistan, which responded with nuclear tests of its own.
This stand-off was the turning point that began India’s pursuit of a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. According toThe Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, additional nuclear missile tests occurred in the summer of 2004; since then, the Indian Defense Ministry has earmarked $2 billion annually to build 300 to 400 weapons over the next 5 to 7 years.
India maintains a “no first strike” nuclear policy, and asserts that it only seeks enough nuclear weaponry to effectively deter aggressors. The U.S. President George W. Bush, during a March 2006 visit with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, announced cooperation between the two countries on civilian nuclear programs and had previously called India a “responsible” nuclear nation (Der Spiegel). These measures drew an American diplomatic line between India and other nations that have nixed participation in the NPT, such as North Korea and Iran. Whatever its nuclear aspirations, the country has a long military shopping list. Last year, it announced plans to build the first aircraft carrier ever put to sea by a developing nation, and to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. America has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels, combat aircraft, patrol aircraft and helicopters to India. One former U.S. ambassador to India opined, “Of course, we should sell advanced weaponry to India. The millionman Indian army actually fights, unlike the post-modern militaries of many of our European allies”. Many have compared India’s pattern of growth to its neighbour, China. The countries have much in common— physical borders, immense populations, similar challenges, ancient civilisations and quickly-rising economies. India also measures itself against China, coveting its economic power and international standing, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Though a degree of tension does remain between the two nations, with lingering memories of the brief 1962 war in which China soundly defeated India, the relationship between these two Asian giants is warming up. Trade between them is now increasing at a vigorous pace, and diplomatic relations are at a post-1962 highpoint. Chinese Prime Minister WenJiabao, during a recent visit to New Delhi, hailed cooperation between the two nations as the driving force of a new “Asian Century.” Indian Prime Minister Singh spoke of the potential for India and China to rearrange the world order by working together. Many have pointed out that their economic strengths seem to be tailor-made for a partnership. India seeks to be a major player in the computer software world in the same way that China is in the area of hardware. Cooperation between Beijing and New Delhi could prove a dominant force in the information technology market.
Both nations have a voracious appetite for natural resources, and a recent energy deal neatly symbolized the new Sino-Indian dynamic: India acquired a 20% share in the development of the largest onshore oil field in Iran. The venture happens to be operated and 50% owned by Sinopec—China’s state-run oil company.

However, India could seek to undercut China’s manufacturing prices (as China did with many Southeast Asian countries in the 1990s). But it is more likely to pursue a different segment of the world market by producing higherquality goods, as well as entirely different products.

Time will tell exactly how the relationship will mix competition and cooperation. These two nations both aspire to “first-world” status—and economic gains could be the incentive for a more tightly allied Asia.

With its newfound power, India faces a dilemma: Should it ultimately pursue closer ties with Western nations or with other Asian countries?

After India gained independence, its first Prime Minister spoke of an Asian renaissance, envisioning a tightly bound continent changing the post-World War II landscape. Though premature at the time, the idea is now more feasible than any time since the Cold War era. Along with the improving relations with China, India is also friendly with Russia and Japan. And, as of 2004, the value of India’s trade with other Asian nations surpassed that of exchange with the United States and Western Europe put together.
But the United States—after courting India’s arch-rival Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror after the September 11 attacks—is now distancing itself somewhat from the current Islamabad regime led by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, focusing on India instead. India’s common ground with the U.S. includes liberal democratic government, capitalism and, among the more educated urban residents, the English language.
       However, America’s courting of India is viewed by some as a way to limit and contain Chinese influence in Asia. Some Indians resent this perception of their nation as a pawn of the U.S. Though they appreciate the American lifestyle and culture, much of the Indian population still sees this lone superpower as a bully. While it may be able to dance with both partners alternately for a while, India will eventually be forced to choose. Which way will this nation turn? We need not merely guess where world events will ultimately lead. While many of the details remain to be seen, the overall framework of the future has been recorded in advance in one book—The Holy Bible.
       In nations such as India, the size of population alone pulls them toward superpower status. Bible prophecy describes global power blocs—superpowers, or groups of superpowers—that will be prominent at the end of the age, shortly before Jesus Christ returns. These powers will be based in the north (Europe), the south (the Arab world), and the “kings of the East”—a group of Asian nations that will band together, eventually fielding a standing army of two hundred million!
The nations of the West, including the United States, are headed for hard times as a result of their national and personal sins against the God that inspired The Bible. He reveals that they will be forsaken by their allies, called “lovers” in Scripture:
“And when you are spoiled, what will you do? Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, though you rend your face with painting, in vain shall you make yourself fair; your lovers will despise you, they will seek your life…All your lovers have forgotten you; they seek you not; for I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of your iniquity; because your sins were increased”. India is today one of these “lovers,” but one that will soon prove to be something very different. So will other nations that Western countries now consider to be allies. Keep watching India’s growth toward superpower status—just one part of the inevitable rise of Asia!

Why did Swam leave his friend Mohan in the waters?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It was Sunday. As usual, there was a great rush of merry makers who had come to the river to swim or to bathe. Those who knew how to swim were jumping into the water from the high bridge or the banks of the deep river. Mohan did not know how to swim so he was merely watching others who were enjoying the fun of swimming. However on the insistence of his friend Swam, he sat on his shoulders and both jumped into the water. Unable to carry Mohan along, Swam left him in the flowing water. Mohan shouted for help. There were so many swimmers but nobody came to his rescue since they were indifferent to the plight of a stranger. I had just reached there, so I was in my full dress. Without undressing I jumped into the river and swam up to the drowning boy. Holding his left arm, I brought him out of water in a way that he might not hinder me from swimming safely. The boy was saved which won me great applause from the people. I had jumped into the water without any fear or hesitation as I knew the art of saving drowning people. I had already saved a few lives from drowning.

Why did Swam jump into the water carrying Mohan on his shoulders?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It was Sunday. As usual, there was a great rush of merry makers who had come to the river to swim or to bathe. Those who knew how to swim were jumping into the water from the high bridge or the banks of the deep river. Mohan did not know how to swim so he was merely watching others who were enjoying the fun of swimming. However on the insistence of his friend Swam, he sat on his shoulders and both jumped into the water. Unable to carry Mohan along, Swam left him in the flowing water. Mohan shouted for help. There were so many swimmers but nobody came to his rescue since they were indifferent to the plight of a stranger. I had just reached there, so I was in my full dress. Without undressing I jumped into the river and swam up to the drowning boy. Holding his left arm, I brought him out of water in a way that he might not hinder me from swimming safely. The boy was saved which won me great applause from the people. I had jumped into the water without any fear or hesitation as I knew the art of saving drowning people. I had already saved a few lives from drowning.

The author seems to disapprove further extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. Which of the following is the most likely reason for that?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

We have built up an energy intensive society, such that hundreds of daily acts are dependent on having energy at our ready command. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Yet, within two centuries we will have used up nearly all of the fossil fuel that has been built up over millions of years of earth time. Furthermore, the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is a major polluter of our environment. Our appetite for energy is seemingly insatiable. We are now searching for it in different places and using methods that inevitably upset and pollute the environment. Since fossil energy will soon be gone we are searching for alternative sources.

According to the author, we are searching for alternative sources of energy. What is the most likely reason for this?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

We have built up an energy intensive society, such that hundreds of daily acts are dependent on having energy at our ready command. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Yet, within two centuries we will have used up nearly all of the fossil fuel that has been built up over millions of years of earth time. Furthermore, the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is a major polluter of our environment. Our appetite for energy is seemingly insatiable. We are now searching for it in different places and using methods that inevitably upset and pollute the environment. Since fossil energy will soon be gone we are searching for alternative sources.

Why did the writer jump into the river without any fear or hesitation?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It was Sunday. As usual, there was a great rush of merry makers who had come to the river to swim or to bathe. Those who knew how to swim were jumping into the water from the high bridge or the banks of the deep river. Mohan did not know how to swim so he was merely watching others who were enjoying the fun of swimming. However on the insistence of his friend Swam, he sat on his shoulders and both jumped into the water. Unable to carry Mohan along, Swam left him in the flowing water. Mohan shouted for help. There were so many swimmers but nobody came to his rescue since they were indifferent to the plight of a stranger. I had just reached there, so I was in my full dress. Without undressing I jumped into the river and swam up to the drowning boy. Holding his left arm, I brought him out of water in a way that he might not hinder me from swimming safely. The boy was saved which won me great applause from the people. I had jumped into the water without any fear or hesitation as I knew the art of saving drowning people. I had already saved a few lives from drowning.

According to the passage, books live for ever because

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Books are, by far, the most lasting product of human effort. Temples crumble into ruins. Pictures and statues decay, but books survive. Time does not destroy the great thoughts which are as fresh today as when they first passed through their authors minds ages ago. The only effect of time has been to throw out of currency, the bad products, for nothing in literature can long survive but what is really good and of lasting value. Books introduce us into the best society; they bring us into the presence of the greatest minds that have ever lived, we hear what they said and did; we see them as if they were really alive, we sympathise with them, enjoy with them and grieve with them.

“Lasting value” in the passage means

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Books are, by far, the most lasting product of human effort. Temples crumble into ruins. Pictures and statues decay, but books survive. Time does not destroy the great thoughts which are as fresh today as when they first passed through their authors minds ages ago. The only effect of time has been to throw out of currency, the bad products, for nothing in literature can long survive but what is really good and of lasting value. Books introduce us into the best society; they bring us into the presence of the greatest minds that have ever lived, we hear what they said and did; we see them as if they were really alive, we sympathise with them, enjoy with them and grieve with them.