Answer the question based on the information given in the passage. Orwell’s political views shifted over time, but he was a man of the political left throughout his life as a writer. In his earlier days he occasionally described himself as a "Tory anarchist". His time in Burma made him a staunch opponent of imperialism, and his experience of poverty while researching Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier turned him into a socialist. "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it," he wrote in 1946.  Orwell is most likely to: OPTIONS     1) Support the formation of powerful labor unions.   2) Oppose the two party parliamentary system.   3) Oppose corruption in the public distribution system.   4) Support fair elections and equitable distribution of resources.   5) Support non-profit organizations working to abolish royal privileges.

Solution

The paragraph talks about Orwell's views on the existing political environment and his views on the ideal political environment. It is obvious that he would support the option that would lead to this ideal political environment. Options 2 and 3 talk more about opposition to existing systems rather than looking ahead at a change. Options 1 and 5 summarize the paragraph only partially. They mention only certain aspects of democracy and socialism. Hence, they can be eliminated. Option 4 talks about democratic socialism by highlighting events such as fair elections and equitable distribution of resources-the best available option. Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

The question below contains a number of sentences. Each sentence has pairs of word(s)/phrases that are highlighted. From the highlighted word(s)/phrase(s), select the most appropriate word(s)/phrase(s) to form correct sentences. Then, from the options given, choose the best one. In certain countries thievery is equal (A) / equivalent (B) to murder. The jury would rather acquit than (A) / then (B) convict on the basis of flimsy evidence. Maria is older (A) / elder (B) than Federico. He has provided a veracious (A) / voracious (B) statement of facts as justification. The police tried to elicit (A) / illicit (B) information from the suspect. OPTIONS     1) AAAAA    2) ABAAB   3) BAAAB   4) BBBAA   5) BAAAA

Solution

The correct usage in statement 1 is “equivalent” which means ‘amounting to’. “Equal” to is literal as explained in a mathematical equation ‘ two plus two is equal to four’. Therefore, options 1 and 2 are eliminated. In statement 2, “rather….than” is the correct grammatical usage.Therefore, option 4 is eliminated. In statement 3, “older than” is correct usage. Alternatively it is ‘elder to’. In statement 4, “Veracious” means ‘truthful’, while “voracious” means ‘ravenous’. “Veracious” fits in here in the context of the statement. A statement cannot possibly be “voracious”. To “elicit” means ‘to get information’ and is the apt word here; “illicit” means ‘illegal’. Therefore, option 3 is eliminated. Hence, the correct answer is option 5.

The question below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text. That people have personalities goes without saying. There are the shy, the cruel, the kind, and the sceptical. And, it is hardly uncommon to hear a dog described as friendly or inquisitive. Scientific research has confirmed that dogs do indeed have personality traits similar to those found in people. In dogs, for instance, these are usually referred to as energy-level, affection-aggression, anxiety-calmness and intelligence-stupidity; in people they are extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and conscientiousness. Yet in spite of all this, rather little has been done to find out if such characteristics exist in wild animals. Studies in Animal Behaviour show not only that some do but also that the presence of such traits is skewing the way data is collected by researchers. OPTIONS 1) People and animals have personalities, but animal personalities are not recognized by scientific research. 2) Animals have personalities like humans. However scientific research so far has either ignored them or is biased against them. 3) Animals have personalities the way people have. However, scientific research in animal behaviour is not only inadequate but also biased. 4) Dogs have personalities just like people. However, scientific research ignores wild animals, and the data collected about animal behaviour by scientific research is skewed. 5) Scientific research has established that dogs have personality traits like those of people. Wild animal behaviour is not adequately studied and data collected is skewed.

Solution

Option 1 is ridiculous in ‘animal personalities are not recognised’ ( as if there are animal celebrities). Option 2 is ridiculous in “Animals have personalities like humans”- they do not have personality like humans but they have personality traits the way humans have personality traits. The option states animals are like humans. Options 4 and 5 are equally ridiculous for the incorrect comparison made between people and animals.Dogs do not have personalities or personality traits like humans but rather they have personality traits the same way as humans have personality traits. Option 3 captures the essence of the paragraph perfectly and succintly. Hence, the correct answer is option 3.

The question below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.

That people have personalities goes without saying. There are the shy, the cruel, the kind, and the sceptical. And, it is hardly uncommon to hear a dog described as friendly or inquisitive. Scientific research has confirmed that dogs do indeed have personality traits similar to those found in people. In dogs, for instance, these are usually referred to as energy-level, affection-aggression, anxiety-calmness and intelligence-stupidity; in people they are extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and conscientiousness. Yet in spite of all this, rather little has been done to find out if such characteristics exist in wild animals. Studies in Animal Behaviour show not only that some do but also that the presence of such traits is skewing the way data is collected by researchers.

OPTIONS
	1)	People and animals have personalities, but animal personalities are not recognized by scientific research.
	2)	Animals have personalities like humans. However scientific research so far has either ignored them or is biased against them.
	3)	Animals have personalities the way people have. However, scientific research in animal behaviour is not only inadequate but also biased.
	4)	Dogs have personalities just like people. However, scientific research ignores wild animals, and the data collected about animal behaviour by scientific research is skewed.
	5)	Scientific research has established that dogs have personality traits like those of people. Wild animal behaviour is not adequately studied and data collected is skewed. Post your reply / solution at the Comment Box. For solution see tomorrows Post in the same space

The gist of the paragraph is: Carbon emissions from deforestation are an environmental externality- its economics is not accounted for. Landowners have no incentives NOT to cut down trees. To resolve this, ‘voluntary’ carbon credits (for avoided deforestation) is suggested. There is already a market for this.
Option 5 captures this essence.
Option 1 is too generic. The paragraph is about deforestation in particular and not the entire gamut of ‘environmental economics’. Further we cannot ascertain from the paragraph whether voluntary “credits” are ‘effective’.
Option 2 is categorical in ‘compensates’ and ‘resolves’- the suggestive element is missing. (In the correct option ‘could be’ accommodates the suggestion part).
Option 3 is eliminated because of ‘must be.’
Option 4 is too categorical in stating that voluntary carbon credits compensate landowners and decreases carbon emissions. The paragraph is suggestive on this issue.
Hence, the correct answer is option 5.

Avoiding deforestation means that many landowners must forgo the right to cut down their trees, so that the world at large can benefit. As such, carbon emissions from deforestation are a classic example of “environmental externality”. So long as this remains the case, forests will continue to be cut down. To resolve the problem, it has been suggested that the people who forgo their rights are compensated. There is already a market for what are called “voluntary” credits in avoided deforestation.

OPTIONS
	1)	The existing market for “voluntary” credits in avoided deforestation is an effective way to internalise the “environmental externality” in environmental economics.
	2)	The existing market for “voluntary” carbon credits in avoided deforestation compensates the landowners and resolves the problem of deforestation by the landowners and reduces carbon emissions.
	3)	In order to decrease carbon emissions from deforestation landowners must be compensated for not cutting down trees, and the market for “voluntary’’ carbon credits must be strengthened.
	4)	The existing market for “voluntary” carbon credits in avoided deforestation compensates landowners and decreases carbon emissions from deforestation.
	5)	The existing market for “voluntary” carbon credits in avoided deforestation could be one of the ways to resolve deforestation by the landowners, and decrease carbon emissions from deforestation. Post your reply / solution at the Comment Box. For solution see tomorrows Post in the same space