Comprehension Test Questions and Answers प्रश्न और उत्तर का अभ्यास करें
8- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 2. "healthy "
प्र:Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.
If the census tells us that India has two or three hundred languages, it also tells us, I believe, that Germany has about fifty or sixty languages. I do not remember anyone pointing out this fact in proof of the disunity or disparity of Germany. As a matter of fact, a census mentions all manner of petty languages, sometimes spoken by a few thousand persons only; and often dialects are classed for scientific purposes as different languages. India seems to me to have surprisingly few languages, considering its area. Compared to the same area in Europe, it is far more closely allied in regard to language, but because of widespread illiteracy, common standards have not developed and dialects have formed. The principal languages of India are Hindustani (of the two varieties, Hindi and Urdu), Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada. If Assamese, Oriya, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Pushtu and Punjabi are added, the whole country is covered except for some hill and forest tribes. Of these, the Indo-Aryan languages, which cover the whole north, centre and west of India, are closely allied; and the southern Dravidian languages, though different, have been greatly influenced by Sanskrit, and are full of Sanskrit words.
The Dravidian languages have been greatly influenced by Sanskrit. This-
991 060c87bb2ee8b201ab647f03e
60c87bb2ee8b201ab647f03eIf the census tells us that India has two or three hundred languages, it also tells us, I believe, that Germany has about fifty or sixty languages. I do not remember anyone pointing out this fact in proof of the disunity or disparity of Germany. As a matter of fact, a census mentions all manner of petty languages, sometimes spoken by a few thousand persons only; and often dialects are classed for scientific purposes as different languages. India seems to me to have surprisingly few languages, considering its area. Compared to the same area in Europe, it is far more closely allied in regard to language, but because of widespread illiteracy, common standards have not developed and dialects have formed. The principal languages of India are Hindustani (of the two varieties, Hindi and Urdu), Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada. If Assamese, Oriya, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Pushtu and Punjabi are added, the whole country is covered except for some hill and forest tribes. Of these, the Indo-Aryan languages, which cover the whole north, centre and west of India, are closely allied; and the southern Dravidian languages, though different, have been greatly influenced by Sanskrit, and are full of Sanskrit words.
- 1makes them inferior to the Indo-Aryan languagesfalse
- 2makes them superior to the Indo-Aryan languagesfalse
- 3brings them close to the Indo-Aryan languagestrue
- 4makes them very different from the other Indian languagesfalse
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 3. "brings them close to the Indo-Aryan languages "
प्र:Directions : You have a passage with 10 questions. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Long ago men spent most of their time looking for food. They ate anything they could find. Some lived mostly on plants. They ate the fruit, stems, and leaves of some plants and the roots of others. When food was scarce, they ate the bark of trees. If they were lucky, they would find a bird’s nest with eggs. People who lived near the water ate fish or anything that washed ashore, even rotten whales. Some people also ate insects and small animals like lizards that were easy to kill.
Later, men learned to make weapons. With weapons, they could kill larger animals for meat. These early people had big appetites. If they killed an animal, they would drink the blood, eat the meat, and chew the bones. When they finished the meal, there was nothing left.
At first men wandered from place to place to find their food. But when they began to grow plants, they stayed in one place and ate what they could grow. They tamed animals, trained them to work, and killed them for meat. Life was a little better then, but there was still not much variety in their meals. Day after day people ate the same food.
Gradually men began to travel greater distances. The explorers who sailed unknown seas found new lands. And in these lands they found new food and spices and took them back home.
The Portuguese who sailed around the stormy Cape of Good Hope to reach China took back “Chinese apples”, the fruit we call oranges today. Later, Portuguese colonists carried orange seeds to Brazil. From Brazil oranges were brought to California, the first place to grow oranges in the United States. Peaches and melons also came from China. So did a new drink, tea.
The phrase live on in the passage means
991 063bd4f1f61d62119f1d4d0b0
63bd4f1f61d62119f1d4d0b0- 1to eat a certain kind of food in order to survivetrue
- 2to eat greedilyfalse
- 3to eat everything that you are given to eatfalse
- 4to depend on plants and foods for a livelihoodfalse
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 1. "to eat a certain kind of food in order to survive "
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 1. "Confirm "
प्र:Among Nature’s most intriguing phenomena are the partnerships formed by any different species. The name used for these relationships, Symbiosis, comes from Greek meaning "living together". Not all symbiotic relationships are the same. There are some called commensal relationships, in which one partner gains a benefit while the other gains little or none but is not harmed. One example is the relationship between two types of fish remoras and sharks. The remora, which is long and often striped, attaches itself to a shark (sometimes to another type of fish or a whale), using a sucker on its head. When the shark makes a kill, the hitchhiker briefly detaches itself to feed on the scraps. Another type of symbiotic relationship is parasitism, in which one partner benefits at the expense of others. Ticks and tapeworms are among familiar parasites.
The third type of symbiotic relationship, called mutualism, is a true partnership in which both partners benefit. The relationship may be limited as when zebras and wild best graze together on the vast African grasslands. Each species can survive on its own, but together their chances of detecting predators are improved because each contributes a specially keen sense. (Zebras have the better eyesight; wild beast, hearing and sense of smell). In a few cases partners are so interdependent that one cannot survive without the other. Most mutualistic relationships probably lie some where in between
Parasites
990 063a6bdde04f44f63d9a5cbc7
63a6bdde04f44f63d9a5cbc7- 1are neither beneficial nor harmful to animals they are with.false
- 2benefit at the expense of the animals they live with.true
- 3are beneficial to the animals they live with.false
- 4harm the animals they live with.false
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 2. "benefit at the expense of the animals they live with. "
प्र:Among Nature’s most intriguing phenomena are the partnerships formed by any different species. The name used for these relationships, Symbiosis, comes from Greek meaning "living together". Not all symbiotic relationships are the same. There are some called commensal relationships, in which one partner gains a benefit while the other gains little or none but is not harmed. One example is the relationship between two types of fish remoras and sharks. The remora, which is long and often striped, attaches itself to a shark (sometimes to another type of fish or a whale), using a sucker on its head. When the shark makes a kill, the hitchhiker briefly detaches itself to feed on the scraps. Another type of symbiotic relationship is parasitism, in which one partner benefits at the expense of others. Ticks and tapeworms are among familiar parasites.
The third type of symbiotic relationship, called mutualism, is a true partnership in which both partners benefit. The relationship may be limited as when zebras and wild best graze together on the vast African grasslands. Each species can survive on its own, but together their chances of detecting predators are improved because each contributes a specially keen sense. (Zebras have the better eyesight; wild beast, hearing and sense of smell). In a few cases partners are so interdependent that one cannot survive without the other. Most mutualistic relationships probably lie some where in between
Remora feeds
986 063a6be2304f44f63d9a5cd93
63a6be2304f44f63d9a5cd93- 1on the shark it travels with.false
- 2on the left-over parts of the shark’s prey.true
- 3by detaching itself to attack the prey.false
- 4on a whale or another type of fish.false
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 2. "on the left-over parts of the shark’s prey. "
प्र:Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions.
It is impossible for a well-educated, intellectual or brave man to make money the chief object of his thought, just as it is for him to make his dinner the principal object of them. All healthy people like their dinners, but their dinner is not the main object of their lives. So all healthy-minded people like making money-ought to like it, and to enjoy the sensation of winning it, but the main object of their life is not money, it is something better than money. A good soldier, for instance mainly wishes to do his fighting well. He is glad of his pay, very properly so, and justly grumbles when you keep him ten years without it - still his main notion of life is to win battles not to be paid for winning them. So of the doctor. They like fees, no doubt, ought to like them, yet if they are brave and well-educated, the entire object of their lives is not fees. They, on the whole, desire to cure the sick, and if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them, they would rather cure their patient, and lose the fees, than kill him and get it. And so with all other brave and rightly trained men, their work is first, their fees second - very important, no doubt, but still second. But in every nation, there are a vast number of people who are ill-educated, cowardly and stupid. And with these people, just as certainly the fee is first and work second, as with brave people the work is first and fee second.
Which of the following statements is true?
986 061277bacb05363065a0184ff
61277bacb05363065a0184ffIt is impossible for a well-educated, intellectual or brave man to make money the chief object of his thought, just as it is for him to make his dinner the principal object of them. All healthy people like their dinners, but their dinner is not the main object of their lives. So all healthy-minded people like making money-ought to like it, and to enjoy the sensation of winning it, but the main object of their life is not money, it is something better than money. A good soldier, for instance mainly wishes to do his fighting well. He is glad of his pay, very properly so, and justly grumbles when you keep him ten years without it - still his main notion of life is to win battles not to be paid for winning them. So of the doctor. They like fees, no doubt, ought to like them, yet if they are brave and well-educated, the entire object of their lives is not fees. They, on the whole, desire to cure the sick, and if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them, they would rather cure their patient, and lose the fees, than kill him and get it. And so with all other brave and rightly trained men, their work is first, their fees second - very important, no doubt, but still second. But in every nation, there are a vast number of people who are ill-educated, cowardly and stupid. And with these people, just as certainly the fee is first and work second, as with brave people the work is first and fee second.
- 1The main object of a good soldier is to kill people.false
- 2The main object of a good soldier is to do his fighting well.true
- 3The main object of a good soldier is to earn well.false
- 4The main object of a good soldier is to attach no importance to money.false
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
उत्तर : 2. "The main object of a good soldier is to do his fighting well."
- उत्तर देखेंउत्तर छिपाएं
- Workspace
- SingleChoice

