Thursday, 6 October 2016

Practice Set for IBPS PO Prelims 2016: English Language

Dear Students,

It's time to gear up for IBPS PO Prelims Exams and we'll provide you with practice sets. You are just left with few days for IBPS PO Pre Exam. But, for to achieve your goal you need to work round the clock. You do not have a single minute to waste now. So after deep analysis we have prepared this practice set which will give you the feeling of actual examination. This Practice Set will help you test your level for the exam and prepare your strategy accordingly.  Today we are providing you with Practice Set of English Language.  









1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Questions: 1 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
1. Which of the following is a suitable title for the passage?
An Atonement Gone Too Far
Sanctimony from a Ruined Pedestal
The ADM Jabalpur's Case: The Supreme Court's Darkest Hour
Overcompensating for Past Mistakes
Litigating public’s interest
Solution:
This title summarizes the main idea of the passage very well. The passage talks of the Supreme Court’s unconscionable stance during the Emergency and its subsequent “activist avatar” to atone.
Questions: 2 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
2. The author says that the Supreme Court was “more executive-minded than the executive” during the Emergency. Which of the following options captures the essence of what the writer means by the phrase: 'more “executive-minded than the executive”'?
The Supreme Court abdicated its independence to an authoritarian government by embracing its perspective.
The Supreme Court was more emphatic than the Government about exercising executive power under the MISA.
The Supreme Court reflected the unconscionable actions taken by the government by upholding its laws.
The Supreme Court wanted to curry favor with the government through its deferential decisions during Emergency.
None of these.
Solution:
This option is right on target in explaining why, according to the author, the Supreme Court was “more” executive-minded (unyielding) than the executive (the government) in enforcing the MISA and curbing fundamental rights.
Questions: 3 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
3. Which of the following cannot be reasonably inferred from the passage?
The Supreme Court was complicit in curbing judicial independence during the Emergency.
Public interest litigations have, post-Emergency, led to the judiciary overreaching into the realm of legislature.
The Indian Judiciary ought not indulge in general supervisory jurisdiction to correct actions and policies of government.
The Indian judiciary must be equipped with technical competence and institutional capacity to ensure compliance to orders passed in relation to public interest litigations.
None of these.
Solution:
This is false. The author believes that the Supreme Court should focus on only judicial functions and not act in matters relating to governance where it does not have the competence or capacity to ensure compliance.
Questions: 4 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
4. The word “egregious” in the passage is farthest in meaning to:
outrageous
flagitious
distinguished
arrant
affliction
Solution:
The word “distinguished”, which means extraordinary in a good way, is the word farthest in meaning to egregious.
Questions: 5 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
5. Which of the following is the author least likely to agree with?
The rise in judicial activism is in danger making the Supreme Court diffuse and ineffective, encroaching into the functions of government.
Where the Supreme Court is only moved for better governance and administration, which does not involve the exercise of any proper judicial function, it should refrain from acting.
Adoption, police reform and environment issues are the remit of the judiciary.
The Indian judicial system needs to focus on clearing the massive backlog of cases to re-establish its credibility.
None of these.
Solution:
Adoption, police reform and environment issues are some topics the passage mentions are “crucial tasks” that are “tardily” dealt with by the government, but outside the remit of the Supreme Court. The author is unlikely to agree with statement c
Questions: 6 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
6. What is the most widely viewed reason for the Supreme Court’s current avatar?
To represent the aggrandized self-image of some of its judges.
As the Supreme Court wants to achieve public litigation at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform.
Reparation for its genuflection before the government.
They are doing it as atonement for not complying with the government in the hour of the greatest need.
None of these.
Solution:
The whole passage is dedicated towards this issue is how supreme court is still atoning for bowing down to government.
Questions: 7 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
Directions (Q. 7): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
7. Litigant
plaintiff
garrison
squadron
fortify
militia
Solution:
Litigant means a person involved in a lawsuit hence plaintiff is the word most similar in meaning.
Questions: 8 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
Directions (8-10): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
8. Complicit
connivance
abetment
complot
manipulation
non involvement
Solution:
Complicit means involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong hence non-involvement is the word most opposite in meaning.
Questions: 9 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
Directions (8-10): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
9. Atonement
Reparation
Restitution
Defiance
Expiation
indemnity
Solution:
Atonement means the action of making amends for a wrong or injury hence defiance is the word most opposite in meaning.
Questions: 10 / 30

Directions (Q. Nos. 1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone.
Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges. Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.
Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.
Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so. As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.
Directions (8-10): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
10. Nuanced
Shade
Accord
Gradation
Variation
Subtlety
Solution:
Nuanced means a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound hence accord is the word most opposite in meaning.
Questions: 11 / 30

Directions (11-15): Each question below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as whole.
11. A controversial plan to build an immense dam in Brazil’s rainforest was stalled when it…………..a formidable bloc of…………in ecologists and indigenous tribes alike.
Resulted, hostilities
Gained, supporters
Attracted, opponents
Lead, protesters
Drew, proponents
Solution:
‘Attracted, opponents’ is the correct use. Attracted means cause to come to a place or participate in a venture by offering something of interest or advantage. Opponents means someone who competes with or opposes another in a contest, game, or argument.
Questions: 12 / 30

Directions (11-15):Each question below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as whole.
12. According to a recent survey, sales figures of high-end cars have seen an…………growth in the past year, which shows that Indian consumers have………… the impact of recession.
Unprecedented, negated
Unbelievable, suffered
Unusual, worsened
Insignificant, endured
Adequate, proven
Solution:
‘Unprecedented, negated’ is the correct use. Unprecedented means never done or known before. Negated means nullify.
Questions: 13 / 30

Directions (11-15):Each question below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as whole.
13. The National Knowledge Commission has said that India will have to bring…………..in education if it has to emerge as the most……………workforce of the world.
Changes, biggest
Reforms, talented
Alleviation, skillful
Perceiving, arising
Outcomes, demanded
Solution:
‘Reforms, talented’ is the correct use. Reforms means make changes in order to improve it. Talented means having a natural aptitude or skill for something.
Questions: 14 / 30

Directions (11-15):Each question below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as whole.
14. Norway has stolen a march over other developed countries by………….that it would reduce 40% of it greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and…………carbon-neutral by 2030.
Allowing turn
Posing, grew
Estimating, exist
Perceiving, arising
Declaring, become
Solution:
‘Declaring, become’ is the correct use. Declaring means say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
Questions: 15 / 30

Directions (11-15): Each question below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as whole.
15. According to the language experts, children should begin talking in their mother tongue rather than a foreign language which can………..affect their comprehension abilities leading to serious language based…………..later in their lives.
Significantly, abilities
Appropriately, achievements
Severely, advantages
Adversely, problems
Positively, issued
Solution:
‘Adversely, problems’ is the correct use. Adversely means something close to badly or harmfully.
Questions: 16 / 30

Direction. (16 – 20): Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (e). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
16. In emerging economies, (a)/ the private credit market (b)/ remains highly segmented and thus (c)/ weaken power of monetary policy. (d)/ No error (e)
a
b
c
d
e
Solution:
Change ‘weaken’ into ‘weakens’ as singular subject (market) must be followed by singular verb (weakens).
Questions: 17 / 30

Direction. (16 – 20): Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (e). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
17. His industrious nature (a)/ and calm temperament ( b) / have endeared him(c) / to his colleagues and one’s superiors. (d) / No error( e)
a
b
c
d
e
Solution:
Delete 'one's'
Questions: 18 / 30

Direction. (16 – 20): Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (e). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
18. According to government estimates (a)/ at least four million tonnes of sugar (b)/ will have to be imported (c)/ this year because of a poor monsoon. (d)/ No error (e).
a
b
c
d
e
Solution:
Definite article ‘the’ before ‘government’ should be used.
Questions: 19 / 30

Direction. (16 – 20): Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (e). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
19. Migraines may doubles (a)/ the risk of a (b)/ a nervous system condition that (c)/ causes facial paralysis. (d)/ No error (e)
a
b
c
d
e
Solution:
Replace ‘doubles’ with ‘double’ as modals take plural form of verb.
Questions: 20 / 30

Direction. (16 – 20): Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (e). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
20. It is better (a)/ to keep one’s head in the (b)/ face of danger than (c) / losing one’s courage (d) / No error(e).
a
b
c
d
e
Solution:
it should be to lose both side of adjective same preposition is used.
Questions: 21 / 30

Directions (21-25): Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.
A. Conventionally, it is said that inflation and output growth go hand in hand i.e, price rises when output is expanding and vice versa.
B. Inflation is the sustained rapid increase in the aggregate price level.
C. Normally, output prices rise first while input prices are relatively sticky.
D. Amongst the various economic costs and gains of inflation is the effect on output growth.
E. In fact, Kaynes was one of those who talked of inflation as an encouraging factor for investment by raising funds.
F. It is also said that if voluntary and involuntary saving are inadequate, inflationary policies are an alternative.
G. Many economists have said that a moderate rate of inflation is good for the economy.
H. This results in increased profits which can stimulate investment and production.
21. Which of the following should be the FIRST sentence after rearrangement?
A
D
B
C
G
Solution:
The correct sequence is BDAGCHFE.
Questions: 22 / 30

Directions (21-25): Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.
 A. Conventionally, it is said that inflation and output growth go hand in hand i.e, price rises when output is expanding and vice versa.
B. Inflation is the sustained rapid increase in the aggregate price level.
C. Normally, output prices rise first while input prices are relatively sticky.
D. Amongst the various economic costs and gains of inflation is the effect on output growth.
E. In fact, Kaynes was one of those who talked of inflation as an encouraging factor for investment by raising funds.
F. It is also said that if voluntary and involuntary saving are inadequate, inflationary policies are an alternative.
G. Many economists have said that a moderate rate of inflation is good for the economy.
H. This results in increased profits which can stimulate investment and production.
22. Which of the following should be the THIRD sentence after rearrangement?
H
A
C
F
E
Solution:
The correct sequence is BDAGCHFE.
Questions: 23 / 30

Directions (21-25): Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.
 A. Conventionally, it is said that inflation and output growth go hand in hand i.e, price rises when output is expanding and vice versa.
B. Inflation is the sustained rapid increase in the aggregate price level.
C. Normally, output prices rise first while input prices are relatively sticky.
D. Amongst the various economic costs and gains of inflation is the effect on output growth.
E. In fact, Kaynes was one of those who talked of inflation as an encouraging factor for investment by raising funds.
F. It is also said that if voluntary and involuntary saving are inadequate, inflationary policies are an alternative.
G. Many economists have said that a moderate rate of inflation is good for the economy.
H. This results in increased profits which can stimulate investment and production.
23. Which of the following should be the SECOND sentence after rearrangement?
A
F
D
G
C
Solution:
The correct sequence is BDAGCHFE.
Questions: 24 / 30

Directions (21-25): Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.
 A. Conventionally, it is said that inflation and output growth go hand in hand i.e, price rises when output is expanding and vice versa.
B. Inflation is the sustained rapid increase in the aggregate price level.
C. Normally, output prices rise first while input prices are relatively sticky.
D. Amongst the various economic costs and gains of inflation is the effect on output growth.
E. In fact, Kaynes was one of those who talked of inflation as an encouraging factor for investment by raising funds.
F. It is also said that if voluntary and involuntary saving are inadequate, inflationary policies are an alternative.
G. Many economists have said that a moderate rate of inflation is good for the economy.
H. This results in increased profits which can stimulate investment and production.
24. Which of the following should be the FIFTH sentence after rearrangement?
E
B
F
C
G
Solution:
The correct sequence is BDAGCHFE.
Questions: 25 / 30

Directions (21-25): Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.
A. Conventionally, it is said that inflation and output growth go hand in hand i.e, price rises when output is expanding and vice versa.
B. Inflation is the sustained rapid increase in the aggregate price level.
C. Normally, output prices rise first while input prices are relatively sticky.
D. Amongst the various economic costs and gains of inflation is the effect on output growth.
E. In fact, Kaynes was one of those who talked of inflation as an encouraging factor for investment by raising funds.
F. It is also said that if voluntary and involuntary saving are inadequate, inflationary policies are an alternative.
G. Many economists have said that a moderate rate of inflation is good for the economy.
H. This results in increased profits which can stimulate investment and production.
25. Which of the following should be the LAST sentence after rearrangement?
A
C
E
D
B
Solution:
The correct sequence is BDAGCHFE.
Questions: 26 / 30

Directions (Q. 26-30): In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningfully complete. Gujarat is one of the largest salt-producing states in India, which is the world’s third-largest salt-producing country. Kharaghoda, 110 km from Ahmedabad, lies in the desert are of the arid Little Rann of Kutch. Here, the earth is so saline that salt is (26) by using solar (27) on subsoil brine. In other words, groundwater is laid out under the sun, evaporates, and (28) behind little piles of the white powder. Kolis (indigenous coastal fisherfolk), Dalits and Muslims from nearby village mine salt in this manner here. Work (29) begins after Navratri, when the rains are gone. Locals head to the salt fields deep within the desert, (30) small huts made of a few bamboo poles and some sacking, and get to work. For the next eight or nine months, they will stayhere with their families, digging 45 metres to 50 metres into the hard soil to reachthe groundwater, then building small bunds to hold the water while it evaporates. In these barren flatlands, there are no provisions, no sweet water and no electricity.
26.
yield
harvested
produced
breeded
manufactured
Questions: 27 / 30

Directions (Q. 26-30): In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningfully complete. Gujarat is one of the largest salt-producing states in India, which is the world’s third-largest salt-producing country. Kharaghoda, 110 km from Ahmedabad, lies in the desert are of the arid Little Rann of Kutch. Here, the earth is so saline that salt is (26) by using solar (27) on subsoil brine. In other words, groundwater is laid out under the sun, evaporates, and (28) behind little piles of the white powder. Kolis (indigenous coastal fisherfolk), Dalits and Muslims from nearby village mine salt in this manner here. Work (29) begins after Navratri, when the rains are gone. Locals head to the salt fields deep within the desert, (30) small huts made of a few bamboo poles and some sacking, and get to work. For the next eight or nine months, they will stayhere with their families, digging 45 metres to 50 metres into the hard soil to reachthe groundwater, then building small bunds to hold the water while it evaporates. In these barren flatlands, there are no provisions, no sweet water and no electricity.
27.
evaporation
distillation
hydration
transformation
solidification
Questions: 28 / 30

Directions (Q. 26-30): In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningfully complete. Gujarat is one of the largest salt-producing states in India, which is the world’s third-largest salt-producing country. Kharaghoda, 110 km from Ahmedabad, lies in the desert are of the arid Little Rann of Kutch. Here, the earth is so saline that salt is (26) by using solar (27) on subsoil brine. In other words, groundwater is laid out under the sun, evaporates, and (28) behind little piles of the white powder. Kolis (indigenous coastal fisherfolk), Dalits and Muslims from nearby village mine salt in this manner here. Work (29) begins after Navratri, when the rains are gone. Locals head to the salt fields deep within the desert, (30) small huts made of a few bamboo poles and some sacking, and get to work. For the next eight or nine months, they will stayhere with their families, digging 45 metres to 50 metres into the hard soil to reachthe groundwater, then building small bunds to hold the water while it evaporates. In these barren flatlands, there are no provisions, no sweet water and no electricity.
28.
delivers
abandons
gives
leaves
quits
Questions: 29 / 30

Directions (Q. 26-30): In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningfully complete. Gujarat is one of the largest salt-producing states in India, which is the world’s third-largest salt-producing country. Kharaghoda, 110 km from Ahmedabad, lies in the desert are of the arid Little Rann of Kutch. Here, the earth is so saline that salt is (26) by using solar (27) on subsoil brine. In other words, groundwater is laid out under the sun, evaporates, and (28) behind little piles of the white powder. Kolis (indigenous coastal fisherfolk), Dalits and Muslims from nearby village mine salt in this manner here. Work (29) begins after Navratri, when the rains are gone. Locals head to the salt fields deep within the desert, (30) small huts made of a few bamboo poles and some sacking, and get to work. For the next eight or nine months, they will stayhere with their families, digging 45 metres to 50 metres into the hard soil to reachthe groundwater, then building small bunds to hold the water while it evaporates. In these barren flatlands, there are no provisions, no sweet water and no electricity.
29.
habitually
usually
sometime
although
whenever
Questions: 30 / 30

Directions (Q. 26-30): In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningfully complete. Gujarat is one of the largest salt-producing states in India, which is the world’s third-largest salt-producing country. Kharaghoda, 110 km from Ahmedabad, lies in the desert are of the arid Little Rann of Kutch. Here, the earth is so saline that salt is (26) by using solar (27) on subsoil brine. In other words, groundwater is laid out under the sun, evaporates, and (28) behind little piles of the white powder. Kolis (indigenous coastal fisherfolk), Dalits and Muslims from nearby village mine salt in this manner here. Work (29) begins after Navratri, when the rains are gone. Locals head to the salt fields deep within the desert, (30) small huts made of a few bamboo poles and some sacking, and get to work. For the next eight or nine months, they will stayhere with their families, digging 45 metres to 50 metres into the hard soil to reachthe groundwater, then building small bunds to hold the water while it evaporates. In these barren flatlands, there are no provisions, no sweet water and no electricity.
30.
come up
held up
sum up
give up
prop up


Pre

Next

               


No comments:

Post a Comment