Topic: Comprehension (Test 3)



Topic: Comprehension
Q.1
Humpty Dumpty sits on a wall every day while having lunch. The wall sometimes breaks. A person sitting on the wall falls if the wall beaks. Which one of the statements below is logically valid and can be inferred from the above sentences ?
A. Humpty Dumpty always falls while having lunch
B. Humpty Dumpty does not fall sometimes while having lunch
C. Humpty Dumpty never falls during dinner
D. When Humpty Dumpty does not sit on the wall, the wall does not break.
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.


Workspace
Report
Q.2
A poll of students appearing for masters in engineering indicated that 60 % of the students believed that mechanical engineering is a profession unsuitable for women. A research study on women with masters or higher degrees in mechanical engineering found that 99 % of such women were successful in their professions. Which of the following can be logically inferred from the above paragraph?
A. Many students have misconceptions regarding various engineering disciplines.
B. Men with advanced degrees in mechanical engineering believe women are well suited to be mechanical engineers.
C. Mechanical engineering is a profession well suited for women with masters or higher degrees in mechanical engineering.
D. The number of women pursuing higher degrees in mechanical engineering is small.
Answer : Option A
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.


Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.3
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. 

As bitcoin launched in 2009, most early adopters saw its disruptive potential. While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive. In 2011, I stated that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) will do to banks what e-mail did to the postal services. This is not just true, but it will be even more brutal to governments, and by extension, governmental services. 
Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government. Therefore, people who like innovation are nurturing this bitcoin thing, this cryptocurrency thing, this ethereum thing (as if governments made a difference, but still). Lots of startups in tip-of-the-spear financial technology means that their government may get a head start over other governments. They have no idea that cryptocurrency will radically scale back the power of government, not just their own one, but also all those other governments over which it seeks a competitive edge. 
Individual people in government can also love bitcoin because it gives them something to do. More specifically, it gives them something to regulate. Fortunately, other people in government see that this gives them something to do, which is to hold those government regulators with an overdeveloped sense of order somewhat in check. You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!”, to which I usually respond, “well, bitcoin is a currency, so I mean you put it in relation to the US Dollar, which then… is not used in crime and contraband trade, is this the argument you’re using to support your position?”, at which point the discussion generally changes topic. 
This completely disregards the observation that bitcoin and cryptocurrency were designed to not submit to regulation in the first place. Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone. 
The reason this will cripple today’s governments — today’s idea of what a government is and does — is because today’s economy is built on one layer doing actual work and three layers of abstraction on top. 
At the first and bottom layer of our economy are the individual people doing all the actual work. 
The second layer on top of the first is the abstraction we call corporations, which is a way to organize our economy and optimize transaction costs. 
The third layer on top of the second would be banks, which handle money for corporations and individual people in a middleman gatekeeper position. 
Finally, the fourth layer is the government, which takes advantage of the banks’ gatekeeper position to siphon off taxes from money flows in order to fund itself and governmental services. In other words, layer four completely depends on layer three for its operations – or at least for the relative simplicity of funding its operations. 
Now, what bitcoin and cryptocurrency do is make away with the banks – cutting them out of the loop entirely, making them redundant, obsolete, dinosaurified. This resulting absence of anything where banks used to be creates an air gap between the functional part of the economy – people and corporations – and governments who want funding. 
The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money. The government can’t point a gun at a computer and have it give up its money; you can only make a computer operator feel very sorry for not voluntarily producing the keys to that money. So the government is no longer able to collect taxes without the consent – even if coerced and forced consent – of the people being thus collected. 
The deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. 
Governments, and individual people in government, have no idea about this bigger picture. They’re far too wrapped up in things-as-usual to notice. They won’t see it coming until it’s already happened. 
When this happens, there will be no shortage of people in government who suddenly want to regulate cryptocurrency – only to find out it will be as effective as regulating gravity. When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it. This will be a very interesting time to live in. While today’s governments will see themselves as getting crippled, I suspect most citizens will regard it as unquestionably healthy that governments will actually begin to depend on the approval of the people at large. 
We’re just beginning to see the changes to society that the Internet brings. This is one of them.

The reason behind the government’s support for innovation is that it-
A. gives an edge over its competitors
B. secures a strong strategic position for the govenment
C. creates employment opportunities
D. enhances the power of the government
E. All of the above
Answer : Option C
Explaination / Solution:

This can be interpreted from these lines, “Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government.”

Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.4
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. 

As bitcoin launched in 2009, most early adopters saw its disruptive potential. While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive. In 2011, I stated that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) will do to banks what e-mail did to the postal services. This is not just true, but it will be even more brutal to governments, and by extension, governmental services. 
Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government. Therefore, people who like innovation are nurturing this bitcoin thing, this cryptocurrency thing, this ethereum thing (as if governments made a difference, but still). Lots of startups in tip-of-the-spear financial technology means that their government may get a head start over other governments. They have no idea that cryptocurrency will radically scale back the power of government, not just their own one, but also all those other governments over which it seeks a competitive edge. 
Individual people in government can also love bitcoin because it gives them something to do. More specifically, it gives them something to regulate. Fortunately, other people in government see that this gives them something to do, which is to hold those government regulators with an overdeveloped sense of order somewhat in check. You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!”, to which I usually respond, “well, bitcoin is a currency, so I mean you put it in relation to the US Dollar, which then… is not used in crime and contraband trade, is this the argument you’re using to support your position?”, at which point the discussion generally changes topic. 
This completely disregards the observation that bitcoin and cryptocurrency were designed to not submit to regulation in the first place. Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone. 
The reason this will cripple today’s governments — today’s idea of what a government is and does — is because today’s economy is built on one layer doing actual work and three layers of abstraction on top. 
At the first and bottom layer of our economy are the individual people doing all the actual work. 
The second layer on top of the first is the abstraction we call corporations, which is a way to organize our economy and optimize transaction costs. 
The third layer on top of the second would be banks, which handle money for corporations and individual people in a middleman gatekeeper position. 
Finally, the fourth layer is the government, which takes advantage of the banks’ gatekeeper position to siphon off taxes from money flows in order to fund itself and governmental services. In other words, layer four completely depends on layer three for its operations – or at least for the relative simplicity of funding its operations. 
Now, what bitcoin and cryptocurrency do is make away with the banks – cutting them out of the loop entirely, making them redundant, obsolete, dinosaurified. This resulting absence of anything where banks used to be creates an air gap between the functional part of the economy – people and corporations – and governments who want funding. 
The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money. The government can’t point a gun at a computer and have it give up its money; you can only make a computer operator feel very sorry for not voluntarily producing the keys to that money. So the government is no longer able to collect taxes without the consent – even if coerced and forced consent – of the people being thus collected. 
The deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. 
Governments, and individual people in government, have no idea about this bigger picture. They’re far too wrapped up in things-as-usual to notice. They won’t see it coming until it’s already happened. 
When this happens, there will be no shortage of people in government who suddenly want to regulate cryptocurrency – only to find out it will be as effective as regulating gravity. When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it. This will be a very interesting time to live in. While today’s governments will see themselves as getting crippled, I suspect most citizens will regard it as unquestionably healthy that governments will actually begin to depend on the approval of the people at large. 
We’re just beginning to see the changes to society that the Internet brings. This is one of them.

“Coercive colossus” used in the passage refers to-
A. Cryptocurrency
B. Banking system
C. Mass surveillance
D. Government
E. None of these
Answer : Option D
Explaination / Solution:

This can easily be interpreted from these lines of the passage, “When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it.” Hence, option D is the correct answer.

Workspace
Report
Q.5
“The hold of the nationalist imagination on our colonial past is such that anything inadequately or improperly nationalist is just not history.” Which of the following statements best reflects the author‟s opinion?
A. Nationalists are highly imaginative.
B. History is viewed through the filter of nationalism.
C. Our colonial past never happened
D. Nationalism has to be both adequately and properly imagined.
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.


Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.6
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and the questions given below it. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. 

The economy of India is the seventh-largest economy in the world measured by nominal GDP and the third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). The country is classified as a newly industrialised country, one of the G-20 major economies, an international forum for the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies, a member of BRICS and a developing economy with an average growth rate of approximately 7% over the last two decades. Maharashtra is the wealthiest Indian state and has an annual GDP of US$220 billion, nearly equal to that of Portugal, and accounts for 12% of the Indian GDP followed by the states of Tamil Nadu (US$140 billion) and Uttar Pradesh (US$130 billion). India's economy became the world's fastest growing major economy in the last quarter of 2014, replacing the People's Republic of China. The long-term growth prospective of the Indian economy is positive due to its young population, corresponding low dependency ratio, healthy savings and investment rates, and increasing integration into the global economy. The Indian economy has the potentialto become the world's 3rd-largest economy by the next decade, and one of the largest economies by mid-century. And the outlookfor short-term growth is also good as according to the IMF, the Indian economy is the "bright spot" in the global landscape. India also topped the World Bank’s growth outlook for 2015-16 for the first time with the economy having grown 7.6% in 2015-16 and expected to grow 8.0%+ in 2016-17. India has the one of fastest growing service sectors in the world with annual growth rate of above 9% since 2001, which contributed to 57% of GDP in 2012-13. India has become a major exporter of IT services, BPO services, and software services with $167.0 billion worth of service exports in 2013-14. It is also the fastest-growing part of the economy. The IT industry continues to be the largest private sector employer in India. India is also the fourth largest start-up hub in the world with over 3,100 technology start-ups in 2014-15 the agricultural sector is the largest employer in India's economy but contributes to a declining share of its GDP (17% in 2013-14). India ranks second worldwide in farm output. The Industry sector has held a constant share of its economic contribution (26% of GDP in 2013-14). The Indian auto mobile industry is one of the largest in the world with an annual production of 21.48 million vehicles (mostly two and three wheelers) in FY 2013-14. India has $600 billion worth of retail market in 2015 and one of world's fastest growing E-Commerce markets. India's two major stock exchanges, Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange of India, had a market capitalisation of US$1.71 trillion and US$1.68 trillion respectively as of Feb 2015, which ranks 11th & 12 largest in the world respectively according to the World Federation of Exchanges. India also home to world's third largest Billionaires pool with 111 billionaires in 2016 and fourth largest number of ultra-high-net-worth households that have more than 100 million dollars. India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the Non Aligned Movement, the G20, the G8+5, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, the Shanghai CooperationOrganisation, the New Development BRICS Bank the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Missile Technology Control Regime.

Choose the words which is most nearly the 
SAME in meaning as the word printed in blood as used in the passage.
Outlook
A. Perspective
B. Viewpoint
C. Standpoint
D. Intention
E. Plan
Answer : Option A
Explaination / Solution:

This is a bit confusing as option 1 and 2 both seem correct but perspective is more similar to outlook than viewpoint.

Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.7
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. 

The idea that every individual should have access to a minimum guaranteed basic income is not new. Thomas Paine sought an equal inheritance for everyone, “a national fund” which would pay every adult a sum of “fifteen pounds sterling as compensation” for the introduction of the system of landed property. Over the last century, with the Great Depression, welfare policy in the U.S. was transformed with minimum wage legislation, while Keynesianism meant that the government would attempt to stimulate the economy during downturns by directly financing public employment and public works. Long-term support was offered to the aged, the disabled and single mothers while unemployment insurance sought to support the temporarily unemployed. The 1960s brought about the war on poverty, waged through federally funded social service and healthcare programmes. Milton Friedman sought a negative income tax, eliminating the need for a minimum wage and potentially the “welfare trap”, while bureaucracy could be curtailed. Richard Nixon supported and yet failed to push through a “Family Assistance Plan” while George McGovern’s 1972 campaign sought a $1,000 “demogrant” for all citizens. This decadal struggle against poverty in the West cut the number of those in poverty in the U.S. to 26 million from 36 million in 12 years. Education and health care were improved, but the employability and the income of the poor remained stranded. With the rise of neo-liberalism, opinion shifted. Existing welfare systems had grown too cumbersome, without eliminating poverty.
Now, however, the idea of an unconditional annual income is gathering momentum. Y Combinator, of Silicon Valley fame, is testing out a new business model: handing out money, without any strings, in an unnamed U.S. community in an attempt to replace safety net welfare policies that often fail to help those with the greatest need. Finland is considering a plan to give 100,000 citizens $1,000 a month, while four cities in Netherlands are starting trial programmes. Switzerland may have rejected, in a referendum, the idea of giving citizens about $2,500 a month, but the Canadian province of Ontario is planning a trial run. Progressives hail it as an escape route for workaholics, from oppressive jobs and situations, giving individuals greater time to build relationships and pursue education or artistic endeavours. Conservatives applaud its potential to shrink bureaucracy. As job concerns about automation grow, the basic income stands out as a panacea.
Even India has seen its share of basic income experiments. A pilot in eight villages in Madhya Pradesh provided over 6,000 individuals a monthly payment (Rs.100 for a child, Rs.200 for an adult; later raised to Rs.150 and Rs.300, respectively). The money was initially paid out as cash, while transitioning to bank accounts three months later. The transfer was unconditional, save the prevention of substitution of food subsidies for cash grants. The results were intriguing. Most villagers used the money on household improvements while taking precautions against malaria — 24.3 per cent of the households changed their main source of energy for cooking or lighting; 16 per cent had made changes to their toilet. There was a seeming shift towards markets, instead of ration shops, given better financial liquidity, leading to improved nutrition, particularly among SC and ST households, and better school attendance and performance. There was an increase in small-scale investments (better seeds, sewing machines, equipment repairs etc). Bonded labour decreased, along with casual wage labour, while self-employed farming and business activity increased. Financial inclusion was rapid – within four months of the pilot, 95.6 per cent of the individuals had bank accounts. Within a year, 73 per cent of the households reported a reduction in their debt. There was no evidence of any increase in spending on alcohol.
Before moving ahead, we would need more data to prove its applicability in the Indian context. There have only been eight large-scale pilot programmes testing the impact of a universal basic income on human well-being. Social context too matters — what might have worked in Manitoba or Kenya might not necessarily be applicable to India. We need a greater depth of pilot studies, focussed on ensuring universal access and covering minimum living expenses. With more pilots planned in Oakland, Netherlands, Germany and India, insights developed can be used to modify welfare policy.

Which among the following is TRUE according to the passage given above?
A. The 1960s brought about the war on poverty, waged through federally funded social service and healthcare programmes
B. Conservatives applaud its potential to shrink bureaucracy
C. There have only been eighteen large-scale pilot programmes testing the impact of a universal basic income on human well-being.
D. Both A and B
E. None of the above
Answer : Option D
Explaination / Solution:

Both the statements are clearly stated in the passage. It is also clearly stated that there have been eight large scale pilot programmes and not eighteen.

Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.8
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. 

The idea that every individual should have access to a minimum guaranteed basic income is not new. Thomas Paine sought an equal inheritance for everyone, “a national fund” which would pay every adult a sum of “fifteen pounds sterling as compensation” for the introduction of the system of landed property. Over the last century, with the Great Depression, welfare policy in the U.S. was transformed with minimum wage legislation, while Keynesianism meant that the government would attempt to stimulate the economy during downturns by directly financing public employment and public works. Long-term support was offered to the aged, the disabled and single mothers while unemployment insurance sought to support the temporarily unemployed. The 1960s brought about the war on poverty, waged through federally funded social service and healthcare programmes. Milton Friedman sought a negative income tax, eliminating the need for a minimum wage and potentially the “welfare trap”, while bureaucracy could be curtailed. Richard Nixon supported and yet failed to push through a “Family Assistance Plan” while George McGovern’s 1972 campaign sought a $1,000 “demogrant” for all citizens. This decadal struggle against poverty in the West cut the number of those in poverty in the U.S. to 26 million from 36 million in 12 years. Education and health care were improved, but the employability and the income of the poor remained stranded. With the rise of neo-liberalism, opinion shifted. Existing welfare systems had grown too cumbersome, without eliminating poverty.
Now, however, the idea of an unconditional annual income is gathering momentum. Y Combinator, of Silicon Valley fame, is testing out a new business model: handing out money, without any strings, in an unnamed U.S. community in an attempt to replace safety net welfare policies that often fail to help those with the greatest need. Finland is considering a plan to give 100,000 citizens $1,000 a month, while four cities in Netherlands are starting trial programmes. Switzerland may have rejected, in a referendum, the idea of giving citizens about $2,500 a month, but the Canadian province of Ontario is planning a trial run. Progressives hail it as an escape route for workaholics, from oppressive jobs and situations, giving individuals greater time to build relationships and pursue education or artistic endeavours. Conservatives applaud its potential to shrink bureaucracy. As job concerns about automation grow, the basic income stands out as a panacea.
Even India has seen its share of basic income experiments. A pilot in eight villages in Madhya Pradesh provided over 6,000 individuals a monthly payment (Rs.100 for a child, Rs.200 for an adult; later raised to Rs.150 and Rs.300, respectively). The money was initially paid out as cash, while transitioning to bank accounts three months later. The transfer was unconditional, saving the prevention of substitution of food subsidies for cash grants. The results were intriguing. Most villagers used the money on household improvements while taking precautions against malaria — 24.3 per cent of the households changed their main source of energy for cooking or lighting; 16 per cent had made changes to their toilet. There was a seeming shift towards markets, instead of ration shops, given better financial liquidity, leading to improved nutrition, particularly among SC and ST households, and better school attendance and performance. There was an increase in small-scale investments (better seeds, sewing machines, equipment repairs etc). Bonded labour decreased, along with casual wage labour, while self-employed farming and business activity increased. Financial inclusion was rapid – within four months of the pilot, 95.6 per cent of the individuals had bank accounts. Within a year, 73 per cent of the households reported a reduction in their debt. There was no evidence of any increase in spending on alcohol.
Before moving ahead, we would need more data to prove its applicability in the Indian context. There have only been eight large-scale pilot programmes testing the impact of a universal basic income on human well-being. Social context too matters — what might have worked in Manitoba or Kenya might not necessarily be applicable to India. We need a greater depth of pilot studies, focussed on ensuring universal access and covering minimum living expenses. With more pilots planned in Oakland, Netherlands, Germany and India, insights developed can be used to modify welfare policy.

Which among the following is the MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word “intriguing”?
A. interesting
B. loathe
C. irksome
D. provocative
E. abandon
Answer : Option C
Explaination / Solution:

'Intriguing' refers to interesting. Contrary to it, 'irksome' is the most suitable response, which means 'annoying'.

Workspace
Report
Topic: Comprehension Tag: English
Q.9
Directions:Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. 

Now let us turn back to inquire whether sending our capital abroad, and consenting to be taxed to pay emigration fares to get rid of the women and men who are left without employment in consequence, is all that capitalism can do when our employers, who act for our capitalists in industrial affairs, and are more or less capitalists themselves in the earlier stages of capitalistic development, find that they can sell no more of their goods at a profit, or indeed at all, in their own country. 
Clearly they cannot send abroad the capital they have already invested, because it has all been eaten up by the workers, leaving in its place factories and railways and mines and the like; and these cannot be packed into a ship's hold and sent to Africa. It is only the freshly saved capital that can be sent out of the country. This, as we have seen, does go abroad in heaps of finished products. But the British land held by him on long lease, must, when once he has sold all the goods at home that his British customers can afford to buy, either shut up his works until the customers have worn out their stock of what they have bought, which would bankrupt him (for the landlord will not wait), or else sell his goods somewhere else; that is, he must send them abroad. Now it is not easy to send them to civilized countries, because they practise Protection, which means that they impose heavy taxes (customs duties) on foreign goods. Uncivilized countries, without Protection, and inhabited by natives to whom gaudy calicoes and cheap showy brassware are dazzling and delightful novelties, are the best places to make for at first. 
But trade requires a settled government to put down the habit of plundering strangers. This is not a habit of simple tribes, who are often friendly and honest. It is what civilized men do where there is no law to restrain them. Until quite recent times it was extremely dangerous to be wrecked on our own coasts, as wrecking, which meant plundering wrecked ships and refraining from any officious efforts to save the lives of their crews, was a well-established business in many places on our shores. The Chinese still remember some astonishing outbursts of looting perpetrated by English ladies of high position, at moments when law was suspended and priceless works of art were to be had for the grabbing. When trading with aborigines begins with the visit of a single ship, the cannons and cutlasses carried may be quite sufficient to overawe the natives if they are troublesome. The real difficulty begins when so many ships come that a little trading station of white men grows up and attracts the white ne'er-do-wells and violent roughs who are always being squeezed out of civilization by the pressure of law and order. It is these riff-raff who turn the place into a sort of hell in which sooner or later missionaries are murdered and traders plundered. Their home governments are appealed to put a stop to this. A gunboat is sent out and inquiry made. The report after the inquiry is that there is nothing to be done but set up a civilized government, with a post office, police, troops and the navy in the offing. In short, the place is added to some civilized Empire. And the civilized taxpayer pays the bill without getting a farthing of the profits. 
Of course the business does not stop there. The riff-raff who have created the emergency move out just beyond the boundary of the annexed territory, and are as great a nuisance as ever to the traders when they have exhausted the purchasing power of the included natives and push on after fresh customers. Again they call on their home government to civilize a further area; and so bit by bit the civilized Empire grows at the expense ofthe home taxpayers, without any intention or approval on their part, until at last although all their real patriotism is centred on their own people and confined to their own country, their own rulers, and their own religious faith; they find that the centre of their beloved realm has shifted to the other hemisphere. That is how we in the British Islands have found our centre moved from London to the Suez Canal, and are now in the position that out of every hundred of our fellow-subjects, in whose defence we are expected to shed the last drop of our blood, only 11 are whites or even Christians. In our bewilderment some of us declare that the Empire is a burden and a blunder, whilst others glory in it as a triumph. You and I need not argue with them just now, our point for the moment being that, whether blunder or glory, the British Empire was quite unintentional. What should have been undertaken only as a most carefully considered political development has been a series of commercial adventures thrust on us by capitalists forced by their own system to cater to foreign customers before their own country's needs were one-tenth satisfied.

According to the author, the habit of plundering the strangers
A. is usually not found in simple tribes but civilized people.
B. is usually found in the barbaric tribes of the uncivilized nations.
C. is a habit limited only to English ladies of high position.
D. is a usual habit with all white-skinned people.
E. None of these
Answer : Option A
Explaination / Solution:

The author says that simple tribes are often friendly and honest.

Workspace
Report
Q.10
Statement: There were different streams of freedom movements in colonial India carried out by the moderates, liberals, radicals, socialists, and so on. Which one of the following is the best inference from the above statement?
A. The emergence of nationalism in colonial India led to our Independence
B. Nationalism in India emerged in the context of colonialism
C. Nationalism in India is homogeneous
D. Nationalism in India is heterogeneous
Answer : Option D
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.


Workspace
Report