Reading Comprehension MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Reading Comprehension - Download Free PDF

The history of studying evolution is full of lively arguments, and one of the longest-running and clearest examples of different ways of thinking is the debate about "beanbag genetics." This name, often used negatively, refers to a way of studying populations in genetics that uses simple math models to show how often different genes appear in a group of organisms. At its peak, this method faced strong criticism, especially from the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. He called it a too-simple approach that failed to capture the deep complexities of how living things develop and function together. Mayr's argument was that these abstract math frameworks, by breaking down life into separate, independently changeable parts (like beans in a bag), always missed the complete, complicated way genes interact within a whole set of genes and how an organism looks and functions. This, he believed, led to a poor understanding of how evolution happens.

Mayr's criticism came from his worry that the 'beanbag' method, because of how it worked, separated the study of evolution from the real biological details of how organisms develop. It didn't account for pleiotropy (where one gene affects many traits) and epistasis (where one gene's effect is changed by another gene). He argued that real organisms are not just collections of genetic parts that change on their own. Instead, they are connected systems where genes work together in complex ways that aren't simply added up to create an organism's traits. This complicated genetic setup, he insisted, couldn't be properly shown by models that mainly focused on tracking how individual gene versions (alleles) changed in number by themselves. For Mayr, a full theory of evolution needed to look more closely at the organism as a whole, rather than just treating it as a statistical breakdown of inherited parts.

However, the article we are looking at carefully brings back and supports a more balanced view of 'beanbag genetics,' largely thanks to the sharp ideas of J.B.S. Haldane, one of its main creators. Haldane's answer to these criticisms was not to deny the biological complexity that Mayr pointed out. Instead, he wanted to make clear the exact goals of the 'beanbag' method. He suggested that the main reason for these math models was not to fully describe all the fine details of how living things develop or how genes are controlled. Rather, their purpose was to simplify and explain the basic processes that cause evolutionary change over generations. These fundamental mechanisms include, but are not limited to, natural selection (where individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce), genetic drift (random changes in how often genes appear, especially noticeable in smaller groups), mutation (the original source of new genetic differences), and gene flow (the movement of genes between different groups).

The usefulness and strong explanatory power of 'beanbag genetics' come from its ability to make these core evolutionary forces manageable for number-based analysis. By building models that include factors like how strongly selection acts, rates of mutation, population sizes, and rates of migration, geneticists could come up with ideas that could be tested and make predictions about how populations would evolve under specific conditions. The article gives Haldane's important work on the peppered moth (Biston betularia) as a perfect example of how effective this method is. His math models accurately predicted the quick increase in the number of dark-colored moths in industrial areas because pollution led to natural selection against the lighter moths. They also predicted the later decrease in dark moths after the environment was cleaned up. This example clearly showed how abstract mathematical thinking could accurately capture and predict real-world evolutionary events, thereby proving the value of the 'beanbag genetics' approach, even though it simplifies things, it still provides deep insights.

In current discussions about evolution, there's been a noticeable return to calls for a more "inclusive" view of evolution. This view suggests bringing in ideas like niche construction and epigenetics. Niche construction proposes that organisms actively change their environments, which then affects the pressures of natural selection on them. Epigenetics, on the other hand, involves changes in how genes are expressed that can be passed down, but without changing the actual DNA sequence. While acknowledging how important these phenomena are as key sources of variation and influences on evolutionary outcomes, the article carefully argues that they don't, in their essence, create new evolutionary processes that replace the main mechanisms explained by 'beanbag genetics.' Instead, these newer fields mainly add to our understanding of the factors and situations in which the fundamental forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow operate.

In conclusion, the article strongly confirms how relevant and vital the contributions of 'beanbag genetics' are to our current understanding of evolution. Far from being an outdated concept, its strict mathematical framework continues to provide the foundation for analyzing the basic drivers of genetic change in populations. While recognizing the constantly expanding areas of molecular and cellular biology, the piece supports combining these new discoveries smoothly into the existing theories instead of completely abandoning its core principles. The 'beanbag' approach, with its focus on measurable genetic changes, remains an essential way to understand the complex variety of life as it evolves, reminding us that even simplified models can reveal profound truths about complicated natural systems.

The history of studying evolution is full of lively arguments, and one of the longest-running and clearest examples of different ways of thinking is the debate about "beanbag genetics." This name, often used negatively, refers to a way of studying populations in genetics that uses simple math models to show how often different genes appear in a group of organisms. At its peak, this method faced strong criticism, especially from the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. He called it a too-simple approach that failed to capture the deep complexities of how living things develop and function together. Mayr's argument was that these abstract math frameworks, by breaking down life into separate, independently changeable parts (like beans in a bag), always missed the complete, complicated way genes interact within a whole set of genes and how an organism looks and functions. This, he believed, led to a poor understanding of how evolution happens.

Mayr's criticism came from his worry that the 'beanbag' method, because of how it worked, separated the study of evolution from the real biological details of how organisms develop. It didn't account for pleiotropy (where one gene affects many traits) and epistasis (where one gene's effect is changed by another gene). He argued that real organisms are not just collections of genetic parts that change on their own. Instead, they are connected systems where genes work together in complex ways that aren't simply added up to create an organism's traits. This complicated genetic setup, he insisted, couldn't be properly shown by models that mainly focused on tracking how individual gene versions (alleles) changed in number by themselves. For Mayr, a full theory of evolution needed to look more closely at the organism as a whole, rather than just treating it as a statistical breakdown of inherited parts.

However, the article we are looking at carefully brings back and supports a more balanced view of 'beanbag genetics,' largely thanks to the sharp ideas of J.B.S. Haldane, one of its main creators. Haldane's answer to these criticisms was not to deny the biological complexity that Mayr pointed out. Instead, he wanted to make clear the exact goals of the 'beanbag' method. He suggested that the main reason for these math models was not to fully describe all the fine details of how living things develop or how genes are controlled. Rather, their purpose was to simplify and explain the basic processes that cause evolutionary change over generations. These fundamental mechanisms include, but are not limited to, natural selection (where individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce), genetic drift (random changes in how often genes appear, especially noticeable in smaller groups), mutation (the original source of new genetic differences), and gene flow (the movement of genes between different groups).

The usefulness and strong explanatory power of 'beanbag genetics' come from its ability to make these core evolutionary forces manageable for number-based analysis. By building models that include factors like how strongly selection acts, rates of mutation, population sizes, and rates of migration, geneticists could come up with ideas that could be tested and make predictions about how populations would evolve under specific conditions. The article gives Haldane's important work on the peppered moth (Biston betularia) as a perfect example of how effective this method is. His math models accurately predicted the quick increase in the number of dark-colored moths in industrial areas because pollution led to natural selection against the lighter moths. They also predicted the later decrease in dark moths after the environment was cleaned up. This example clearly showed how abstract mathematical thinking could accurately capture and predict real-world evolutionary events, thereby proving the value of the 'beanbag genetics' approach, even though it simplifies things, it still provides deep insights.

In current discussions about evolution, there's been a noticeable return to calls for a more "inclusive" view of evolution. This view suggests bringing in ideas like niche construction and epigenetics. Niche construction proposes that organisms actively change their environments, which then affects the pressures of natural selection on them. Epigenetics, on the other hand, involves changes in how genes are expressed that can be passed down, but without changing the actual DNA sequence. While acknowledging how important these phenomena are as key sources of variation and influences on evolutionary outcomes, the article carefully argues that they don't, in their essence, create new evolutionary processes that replace the main mechanisms explained by 'beanbag genetics.' Instead, these newer fields mainly add to our understanding of the factors and situations in which the fundamental forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow operate.

In conclusion, the article strongly confirms how relevant and vital the contributions of 'beanbag genetics' are to our current understanding of evolution. Far from being an outdated concept, its strict mathematical framework continues to provide the foundation for analyzing the basic drivers of genetic change in populations. While recognizing the constantly expanding areas of molecular and cellular biology, the piece supports combining these new discoveries smoothly into the existing theories instead of completely abandoning its core principles. The 'beanbag' approach, with its focus on measurable genetic changes, remains an essential way to understand the complex variety of life as it evolves, reminding us that even simplified models can reveal profound truths about complicated natural systems.

The history of studying evolution is full of lively arguments, and one of the longest-running and clearest examples of different ways of thinking is the debate about "beanbag genetics." This name, often used negatively, refers to a way of studying populations in genetics that uses simple math models to show how often different genes appear in a group of organisms. At its peak, this method faced strong criticism, especially from the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. He called it a too-simple approach that failed to capture the deep complexities of how living things develop and function together. Mayr's argument was that these abstract math frameworks, by breaking down life into separate, independently changeable parts (like beans in a bag), always missed the complete, complicated way genes interact within a whole set of genes and how an organism looks and functions. This, he believed, led to a poor understanding of how evolution happens.

Mayr's criticism came from his worry that the 'beanbag' method, because of how it worked, separated the study of evolution from the real biological details of how organisms develop. It didn't account for pleiotropy (where one gene affects many traits) and epistasis (where one gene's effect is changed by another gene). He argued that real organisms are not just collections of genetic parts that change on their own. Instead, they are connected systems where genes work together in complex ways that aren't simply added up to create an organism's traits. This complicated genetic setup, he insisted, couldn't be properly shown by models that mainly focused on tracking how individual gene versions (alleles) changed in number by themselves. For Mayr, a full theory of evolution needed to look more closely at the organism as a whole, rather than just treating it as a statistical breakdown of inherited parts.

However, the article we are looking at carefully brings back and supports a more balanced view of 'beanbag genetics,' largely thanks to the sharp ideas of J.B.S. Haldane, one of its main creators. Haldane's answer to these criticisms was not to deny the biological complexity that Mayr pointed out. Instead, he wanted to make clear the exact goals of the 'beanbag' method. He suggested that the main reason for these math models was not to fully describe all the fine details of how living things develop or how genes are controlled. Rather, their purpose was to simplify and explain the basic processes that cause evolutionary change over generations. These fundamental mechanisms include, but are not limited to, natural selection (where individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce), genetic drift (random changes in how often genes appear, especially noticeable in smaller groups), mutation (the original source of new genetic differences), and gene flow (the movement of genes between different groups).

The usefulness and strong explanatory power of 'beanbag genetics' come from its ability to make these core evolutionary forces manageable for number-based analysis. By building models that include factors like how strongly selection acts, rates of mutation, population sizes, and rates of migration, geneticists could come up with ideas that could be tested and make predictions about how populations would evolve under specific conditions. The article gives Haldane's important work on the peppered moth (Biston betularia) as a perfect example of how effective this method is. His math models accurately predicted the quick increase in the number of dark-colored moths in industrial areas because pollution led to natural selection against the lighter moths. They also predicted the later decrease in dark moths after the environment was cleaned up. This example clearly showed how abstract mathematical thinking could accurately capture and predict real-world evolutionary events, thereby proving the value of the 'beanbag genetics' approach, even though it simplifies things, it still provides deep insights.

In current discussions about evolution, there's been a noticeable return to calls for a more "inclusive" view of evolution. This view suggests bringing in ideas like niche construction and epigenetics. Niche construction proposes that organisms actively change their environments, which then affects the pressures of natural selection on them. Epigenetics, on the other hand, involves changes in how genes are expressed that can be passed down, but without changing the actual DNA sequence. While acknowledging how important these phenomena are as key sources of variation and influences on evolutionary outcomes, the article carefully argues that they don't, in their essence, create new evolutionary processes that replace the main mechanisms explained by 'beanbag genetics.' Instead, these newer fields mainly add to our understanding of the factors and situations in which the fundamental forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow operate.

In conclusion, the article strongly confirms how relevant and vital the contributions of 'beanbag genetics' are to our current understanding of evolution. Far from being an outdated concept, its strict mathematical framework continues to provide the foundation for analyzing the basic drivers of genetic change in populations. While recognizing the constantly expanding areas of molecular and cellular biology, the piece supports combining these new discoveries smoothly into the existing theories instead of completely abandoning its core principles. The 'beanbag' approach, with its focus on measurable genetic changes, remains an essential way to understand the complex variety of life as it evolves, reminding us that even simplified models can reveal profound truths about complicated natural systems.

The history of studying evolution is full of lively arguments, and one of the longest-running and clearest examples of different ways of thinking is the debate about "beanbag genetics." This name, often used negatively, refers to a way of studying populations in genetics that uses simple math models to show how often different genes appear in a group of organisms. At its peak, this method faced strong criticism, especially from the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. He called it a too-simple approach that failed to capture the deep complexities of how living things develop and function together. Mayr's argument was that these abstract math frameworks, by breaking down life into separate, independently changeable parts (like beans in a bag), always missed the complete, complicated way genes interact within a whole set of genes and how an organism looks and functions. This, he believed, led to a poor understanding of how evolution happens.

Mayr's criticism came from his worry that the 'beanbag' method, because of how it worked, separated the study of evolution from the real biological details of how organisms develop. It didn't account for pleiotropy (where one gene affects many traits) and epistasis (where one gene's effect is changed by another gene). He argued that real organisms are not just collections of genetic parts that change on their own. Instead, they are connected systems where genes work together in complex ways that aren't simply added up to create an organism's traits. This complicated genetic setup, he insisted, couldn't be properly shown by models that mainly focused on tracking how individual gene versions (alleles) changed in number by themselves. For Mayr, a full theory of evolution needed to look more closely at the organism as a whole, rather than just treating it as a statistical breakdown of inherited parts.

However, the article we are looking at carefully brings back and supports a more balanced view of 'beanbag genetics,' largely thanks to the sharp ideas of J.B.S. Haldane, one of its main creators. Haldane's answer to these criticisms was not to deny the biological complexity that Mayr pointed out. Instead, he wanted to make clear the exact goals of the 'beanbag' method. He suggested that the main reason for these math models was not to fully describe all the fine details of how living things develop or how genes are controlled. Rather, their purpose was to simplify and explain the basic processes that cause evolutionary change over generations. These fundamental mechanisms include, but are not limited to, natural selection (where individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce), genetic drift (random changes in how often genes appear, especially noticeable in smaller groups), mutation (the original source of new genetic differences), and gene flow (the movement of genes between different groups).

The usefulness and strong explanatory power of 'beanbag genetics' come from its ability to make these core evolutionary forces manageable for number-based analysis. By building models that include factors like how strongly selection acts, rates of mutation, population sizes, and rates of migration, geneticists could come up with ideas that could be tested and make predictions about how populations would evolve under specific conditions. The article gives Haldane's important work on the peppered moth (Biston betularia) as a perfect example of how effective this method is. His math models accurately predicted the quick increase in the number of dark-colored moths in industrial areas because pollution led to natural selection against the lighter moths. They also predicted the later decrease in dark moths after the environment was cleaned up. This example clearly showed how abstract mathematical thinking could accurately capture and predict real-world evolutionary events, thereby proving the value of the 'beanbag genetics' approach, even though it simplifies things, it still provides deep insights.

In current discussions about evolution, there's been a noticeable return to calls for a more "inclusive" view of evolution. This view suggests bringing in ideas like niche construction and epigenetics. Niche construction proposes that organisms actively change their environments, which then affects the pressures of natural selection on them. Epigenetics, on the other hand, involves changes in how genes are expressed that can be passed down, but without changing the actual DNA sequence. While acknowledging how important these phenomena are as key sources of variation and influences on evolutionary outcomes, the article carefully argues that they don't, in their essence, create new evolutionary processes that replace the main mechanisms explained by 'beanbag genetics.' Instead, these newer fields mainly add to our understanding of the factors and situations in which the fundamental forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow operate.

In conclusion, the article strongly confirms how relevant and vital the contributions of 'beanbag genetics' are to our current understanding of evolution. Far from being an outdated concept, its strict mathematical framework continues to provide the foundation for analyzing the basic drivers of genetic change in populations. While recognizing the constantly expanding areas of molecular and cellular biology, the piece supports combining these new discoveries smoothly into the existing theories instead of completely abandoning its core principles. The 'beanbag' approach, with its focus on measurable genetic changes, remains an essential way to understand the complex variety of life as it evolves, reminding us that even simplified models can reveal profound truths about complicated natural systems.

The 17th century in Europe was a crucible of intellectual ferment, a period marked by the waning influence of scholasticism and the burgeoning dawn of the Scientific Revolution. Amidst this intellectual upheaval, where established truths were being questioned by new astronomical discoveries and philosophical skepticism, emerged René Descartes (1596-1650), a figure whose radical methodology and foundational pronouncements would irrevocably alter the course of Western philosophy. Dissatisfied with the uncertainties and contradictions inherent in the knowledge systems of his time, Descartes embarked on an ambitious intellectual quest: to establish a bedrock of indubitable truth upon which all other knowledge could be securely built. His journey, famously encapsulated by the phrase Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), represents a pivotal moment in the transition from medieval to modern thought, emphasizing the power of individual reason and subjective experience as the starting point for philosophical inquiry.

Descartes's method for achieving this certainty was systematic doubt, a process he meticulously outlined in his Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). He resolved to reject as false anything about which he could conceive the slightest doubt. This radical skepticism extended to sensory experience, which he noted could be deceptive (e.g., optical illusions). He even entertained the possibility of a "malicious demon" or "evil genius" (or a powerful deceiver) who might be systematically misleading him about everything, including the most fundamental mathematical truths. This hypothetical demon was Descartes's ultimate skeptical challenge, pushing doubt to its absolute extreme. The purpose of this hyperbolic doubt was not to revel in skepticism, but to purify his beliefs, stripping away all that was uncertain to reveal what, if anything, remained unshakable.

It was in this crucible of doubt that Descartes discovered his foundational truth: the Cogito, ergo sum. Even if a malicious demon were deceiving him about everything, the very act of being deceived, or of doubting, presupposed an "I" that was doing the doubting or being deceived. One cannot doubt without existing. The act of thinking (in its broadest sense, encompassing doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, imagining, and feeling) necessarily implies an existent thinker. As he famously articulated in Meditations: "I noticed that while I was trying to think of everything as false, it had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something. And noticing that this truth, 'I think, therefore I am,' was so firm and so certain that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking."

The Cogito is not merely a logical inference or a syllogism (where "I think" is a premise and "I am" is a conclusion). Rather, it is presented as an immediate, intuitive apprehension of one's own existence as a thinking thing. It is an axiomatic truth, self-evident upon reflection. What the Cogito establishes is the existence of the self as a res cogitans – a thinking substance, distinct from any physical body or external world. This distinction laid the groundwork for Cartesian dualism, the theory that mind and body are two fundamentally different kinds of substance. The mind, being a thinking, non-extended substance, is primary and knowable with certainty, while the extended, physical body and the external world are known only through the mediation of the senses, which are subject to doubt.

From this singular, indubitable truth of his own existence as a thinking being, Descartes sought to rebuild the edifice of knowledge. His next crucial step was to prove the existence of God. He argued that the idea of a perfect, infinite God could not have originated from his own finite and imperfect mind; therefore, such an idea must have been implanted by God Himself. Furthermore, he presented an ontological argument, asserting that the very concept of a supremely perfect being necessarily includes existence. Once God's existence was established as a perfect and benevolent being, Descartes could then dismiss the malicious demon hypothesis. A perfect God, being supremely good, would not deceive him. This divine guarantee then allowed Descartes to trust his clear and distinct perceptions of the external world, thus moving from the certainty of the self to the certainty of God, and finally to the certainty of the material world.

The legacy of Descartes's Cogito is immense and multifaceted. It shifted the foundation of philosophy from external authority or tradition to the internal, subjective experience of the individual. This emphasis on the thinking subject became a hallmark of modern philosophy, influencing thinkers from Locke and Berkeley to Kant and Husserl. However, the Cogito also opened up new problems. Critics questioned how the mind (a non-physical substance) could interact with the body (a physical substance), a problem known as the mind-body problem. Others challenged the certainty of his proofs for God's existence and the external world, arguing that his entire system ultimately rested on assumptions that were not as indubitable as the Cogito itself. Despite these criticisms, Descartes's relentless pursuit of certainty, his systematic method of doubt, and his groundbreaking articulation of the Cogito remain cornerstones of philosophical inquiry, forever marking him as the progenitor of modern rationalism and a pivotal figure in the history of human thought.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The Ramayana is much shorter than the Mahabharata despite later additions. The scene is set in the middle Ganges Plain and the Vindhyan forests. The original version is attributed to the poet Valmiki, who probably brought together oral fragments and crafted them into poetry that was to become a hallmark of early Sanskrit literature. It is frequently described as the first literary composition, the adi-kavya, a description not used for the other epic, Mahabharata. The original version of the Ramayana is generally dated to the mid-first millennium B.C. The conflict between Rama and Ravana probably reflects a detailed version of local conflicts, occurring between the expanding kingdoms of the Gangetic Plain and the tribes of the Vindhyan region. The kingdom of Kosala represents the newly emerging monarchies and is a contrast to the society of the rakshasas, or the forest tribes who were demonized because their pattern of life was so different from that of the monarchies. The transference of events to a more southerly location may have been the work of a later period, reflecting an expanded geography, as was possibly also the case in the depiction of Lanka itself as a city of immense wealth.

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow by choosing the correct/most appropriate options.

"Most of my time is spent in my room, French-plaiting other girls hair", said Rachel Bufford of the England women's rugby team. Burford and her braided friends then go out in the rugby pitch where, if you have watched any of the recent world cup matches, you have noticed that the women are just as fearless as their male counterparts.

"It has got to the point now when I feel a bit weird if I don't do someone's hair before a game", said Burford. "Some of the girls look really tough with their hair plaited, so it is also a psychological thing-a victorious thing." Sadly victory wasn't tied up in those braids, the team lost to New Zealand in the September 5 final, but many of the players looked fierce like warrior women going into battle.

Plaits are the earliest of hairstyles because before haircutting and hairdressing, people obviously had longhair and plaits were the simplest way of keeping it out of the way, "says a fashion historian." "For that reason", she says, "we associate plaits with both women and men, and particularly these who were involved in athletic pursuits, such as war. Think of Legolas in 'The Lord of the Rings' or the super strong Obelix in the 'Asterix cartoons. For women, Boudicca or Valkyne plaits seem to enhance their ferocity", says cox.

It was a practical hairstyle until we get to the 19th century when it began to be associated with female children. Even now, plaits on the whole have the meaning of the youthful schoolgirl. Not an image you will associate with England's victorious rugby team.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

A recent application filed as a second appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by an activist has revealed that the Central Railway’s catering department purchased certain food items to stock their ware house at several times the maximum retail price.

After railway authorities failed to share information on purchase of food items sought in his RTI application, activist Ajay Bose filed a first appeal. The response to this revealed that each kg of Amul curd was purchased at an eye – watering Rs. 9,720. Mr. Bose filed his query after learning that the catering department was running at a huge loss.

“I filed the application in July 2016, but didn’t get a reply from Central Railway. It appeared they wanted to cover something up. I filed an appeal and the appellate authority show caused the railways asking them to provide details sought by me within 15 days. Despite this, there was no reply even after several months,” Mr. Bose told The Hindu.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The Ramayana is much shorter than the Mahabharata despite later additions. The scene is set in the middle Ganges Plain and the Vindhyan forests. The original version is attributed to the poet Valmiki, who probably brought together oral fragments and crafted them into poetry that was to become a hallmark of early Sanskrit literature. It is frequently described as the first literary composition, the adi-kavya, a description not used for the other epic, Mahabharata. The original version of the Ramayana is generally dated to the mid-first millennium B.C. The conflict between Rama and Ravana probably reflects a detailed version of local conflicts, occurring between the expanding kingdoms of the Gangetic Plain and the tribes of the Vindhyan region. The kingdom of Kosala represents the newly emerging monarchies and is a contrast to the society of the rakshasas, or the forest tribes who were demonized because their pattern of life was so different from that of the monarchies. The transference of events to a more southerly location may have been the work of a later period, reflecting an expanded geography, as was possibly also the case in the depiction of Lanka itself as a city of immense wealth.

Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be highlighted for your attention. Read carefully.

The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 18^th to 19^th centuries, was a period during which predominantly agrarian, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 1700s, manufacturing was often done in people’s homes, using hand tools or basic machines. Industrialization marks a shift to powered, special-purpose machinery, factories and mass production. The iron and textile industries, along with the development of the steam engine, played central roles in the Industrial Revolution, which also saw improved systems of transportation, communication and banking. While industrialization brought about an increased volume and variety of manufactured goods and an improved standard of living for some, it also resulted in often grim employment and living conditions for the poor and working class. Before the advent of the Industrial Revolution , most people resided in small, rural communities, where their daily existences revolved around farming.

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow by choosing the correct / most appropriate options.

Studies serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in judgment, and disposition of business. For expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best, from those that re learned. To spend too much time in studies is sloth; to use them too much for ornament, is affection; to make judgement wholly by their rules, is the humor of a scholar. They prefer nature, and are perfected by experience; for natural abilities are like natural plants, that need pruning, by study; and studies themselves, do give forth directions too much at large, except they be bounded in by experience. Crafty men condemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them, won by observation. Read not to contradict and consider. Some books are to be tasted, other to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of them by others; but that would be only in the less important arguments, and the meaner sort of books, else distilled books are like common distilled waters, flashy things.

Directions: Read the short passage below and answer the questions that follow.

Martin Luther King Jr was a civil rights activist. He made the famous "I Have a Dream" speech. But he did so much more than that. Let's take a closer look at his life and what he accomplished. He was born in 1929 in Atlanta. His father was a preacher and his mother was a teacher. He had an older sister and a younger brother. When he was in high school, he was so smart that he skipped two grades. He went to Morehouse College when he was only 15 years old, and got a degree in sociology. He wanted to make the world a better place. So, he fought for equal rights for African Americans. This is what the civil rights movement was all about. He was an activist during the 1950s and 1960s. He wanted people to fathom what was going on and that it was not fair. One such was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. (You might remember that during this time Rosa Parks had refused to give up her seat to a white man when she was on a bus. She was arrested on the spot.) King fought against the public transportation system in Montgomery. The protest lasted 382 days. He was arrested and his house was bombed. But in the end, King was happy to see that segregation on Montgomery buses ended. African Americans could sit wherever they wanted.

In 1963, he helped organise the "March on Washington to end segregation in public schools, discrimination in jobs, and protect the African Americans from police abuse. Over 250,000 people joined the march. That's when King gave his powerful speech "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, the Civil Rights Act was passed and African Americans were given their rights. King was killed in 1968. But his legacy and speeches will live on forever. His speeches still inspire us today, and he is still seen as one of the best public speakers. He was the youngest person to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize. Martin Luther King Jr. Day was even created in his honour.

Directions: Read the short passage below and answer the questions that follow.

Martin Luther King Jr was a civil rights activist. He made the famous "I Have a Dream" speech. But he did so much more than that. Let's take a closer look at his life and what he accomplished. He was born in 1929 in Atlanta. His father was a preacher and his mother was a teacher. He had an older sister and a younger brother. When he was in high school, he was so smart that he skipped two grades. He went to Morehouse College when he was only 15 years old, and got a degree in sociology. He wanted to make the world a better place. So, he fought for equal rights for African Americans. This is what the civil rights movement was all about. He was an activist during the 1950s and 1960s. He wanted people to fathom what was going on and that it was not fair. One such was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. (You might remember that during this time Rosa Parks had refused to give up her seat to a white man when she was on a bus. She was arrested on the spot.) King fought against the public transportation system in Montgomery. The protest lasted 382 days. He was arrested and his house was bombed. But in the end, King was happy to see that segregation on Montgomery buses ended. African Americans could sit wherever they wanted.

In 1963, he helped organise the "March on Washington to end segregation in public schools, discrimination in jobs, and protect the African Americans from police abuse. Over 250,000 people joined the march. That's when King gave his powerful speech "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, the Civil Rights Act was passed and African Americans were given their rights. King was killed in 1968. But his legacy and speeches will live on forever. His speeches still inspire us today, and he is still seen as one of the best public speakers. He was the youngest person to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize. Martin Luther King Jr. Day was even created in his honour.

Read the given passage and answer the following questions.

India should deploy a dedicated satellite system for tracing and managing its fisheries sector. It should expand its patrolling in the high seas and put in place a 30 year ‘holistic’ shipbuilding plan under the Atmanirbhar initiative to give a boost to shipping and shipbuilding sector, recommends a draft policy prepared by multiple committees led by the Prime Minister’s economic Advisory Council.

The draft is part of India’s ‘Blue Economy’ Framework. This refers to tapping the economic potential from India’s oceans and also includes allied activities such as coastal tourism, mariculture, fisheries and deep-sea mining. Currently a ’conservative’ estimate of the size of the Blue Economy is about 4% of the Gross Domestic Policy, the report notes.

India’s 7,517 km long coastline is home to nine coastal States and 1,382 islands. With 12 major ports and 187 non-major ports, handling about 1,400 million tonnes of cargo, 95% of India’s trade by volume transits by sea. India’s Exclusive Economic Zone of over two million square kilometres is rich in living and non-living resources and holds significant recoverable resources of crude oil and of recoverable natural gas. The coastal economy also sustains over 4 million fishermen and other coastal communities. “With these vast maritime interests, the Blue Economy in India has a vital relationship with the nation’s economic growth,” said the report.

The Ministry of Earth Sciences had drafted a similar policy in 2015 but was not finalised. The present report was prepared by seven committees that had government representatives as well as private organisations such as the Resource Information System for Developing Countries , the National Maritime Foundation , the Energy and Resource Institute, the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Indian Ocean Rim Association.

The Group noted that while there is significant potential for tourism, it was necessary to curb uncontrolled and unplanned tourist activities that cause stress on the carrying capacity of coastal ecosystems, especially those on fragile island territories.

On the basis of your reading of the passage answer the following questions by choosing the best option.

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow by choosing the correct/most appropriate options.

"Most of my time is spent in my room, French-plaiting other girls hair", said Rachel Bufford of the England women's rugby team. Burford and her braided friends then go out in the rugby pitch where, if you have watched any of the recent world cup matches, you have noticed that the women are just as fearless as their male counterparts.

"It has got to the point now when I feel a bit weird if I don't do someone's hair before a game", said Burford. "Some of the girls look really tough with their hair plaited, so it is also a psychological thing-a victorious thing." Sadly victory wasn't tied up in those braids, the team lost to New Zealand in the September 5 final, but many of the players looked fierce like warrior women going into battle.

Plaits are the earliest of hairstyles because before haircutting and hairdressing, people obviously had longhair and plaits were the simplest way of keeping it out of the way, "says a fashion historian." "For that reason", she says, "we associate plaits with both women and men, and particularly these who were involved in athletic pursuits, such as war. Think of Legolas in 'The Lord of the Rings' or the super strong Obelix in the 'Asterix cartoons. For women, Boudicca or Valkyne plaits seem to enhance their ferocity", says cox.

It was a practical hairstyle until we get to the 19th century when it began to be associated with female children. Even now, plaits on the whole have the meaning of the youthful schoolgirl. Not an image you will associate with England's victorious rugby team.