You have eight brief passages with 10 questions following each passage. Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives 

A farmer accompanied by his young son was driving his ass to the market in the hope of selling the ass for a good price. On the road, they met a bevy of girls who laughed and exclaimed, “See this pair of fools ? They are trudging along the dusty road, when they can be riding !” The man thought that there was sense in what they were saying. So he mounted his son on the ass and he walked at the side. Presently, they met some of his old friends, who greeted him and said, “You’ll spoil your son, by letting him ride while you toil along on foot! Make him walk. It’ll be good for him.” The farmer followed their advice and took his son’s place on the back of the ass while the boy trudged along behind. They would not have gone far, they were seen by women and children. The farmer heard them say, “What a selfish old man ! He rides in comfort, but lets his poor little fellow walk the distance.” So he asked his son to get up behind him. Further along the road, they met some travellers. They asked the farmer whether the ass was his property or was it hired for the purpose. The farmer told them that he was taking his ass to the market to sell it. The travellers said, “Good Heavens ! With the load like this, the poor beast will look exhausted and no one would like to purchase him. Why don’t you carry him.” Immediately, the farmer got off the ass, tied its legs with the rope and slung him on a pole and carried him in between them. This was such an absurd sight that people laughed at it. They called the farmer and his son lunatics. They had then reached a bridge over a river. Frightened by the noise around, the ass struggled, kicked, broke the pole, fell into the river and died. The farmer returned home vexed and ashamed. In trying to please all, he in fact, had pleased none and he had lost the ass in the transaction. 

The ass kicked because  

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. 

Which of the following statements is true according to the given passage? 

Read the passage carefully and answer the question accordingly. 

One should consciously engage in activities that will nourish your soul. Just as we nourish the body, we need to nurture the soul to connect to the creative power of the universe and to manifest joy in our lives. Often, we forget to address the soul, lost as we are in a jungle of material and sensual pleasures. But the more you embrace what feeds your soul, the happier you become. So if you want to enjoy the abundance of life, engage in what enriches your soul. Nurturing the soul is all about finding calm amidst chaos. There are a number of practices that empower people towards this end including silent contemplation, various forms of meditation, yoga and tai chi However, the rigor and discipline involved in the pursuit of such practices often seems to discourage people. Add to this, the temptations of the material world that leave little time and motivation for anyone to pursue the spiritual path. Poet Walt Whitman declared: “Whatever satisfies the soul is truth”. The good news is that simple, everyday activities can also nutrify the soul — like spending time in the midst of nature, dancing in the rain or just putting thoughts on paper. Do whatever is calming and pleases you. Creative pursuits are particularly appealing as inside each one of us, there is an artist craving for release and awaiting an opportunity for expression. One of the ways to indulge the artist within is to get started with the practice of any one or more of the creative art forms such as music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction or essay writing. 

When you engage in such soul nourishing activities, all thought and energy gets focused toward goal accomplishment. At this point, you will find that even unknown forces of the universe are conniving to assist you in your amateurish but sincere attempts. As you progress, you are motivated to do better. You touch and access a faculty, a part of you that you never knew existed. Your inner artist is unleashed, baring the beauty of your soul that has found a fond medium of expression. For instance, a sculptor’s soul is seen in his artwork; a musician’s in his compositions; an actor’s in his acting, a painter’s in his paintings and so on. It is immaterial whether your effort is an immaculate artwork or just a clumsy attempt by a layperson. The idea is to try, be inspired and to create giving free rein to the mind. As Michelangelo remarked: “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free”!

What can you infer from Michelangelo’s statement - "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free"?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

The effects of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression are forcing changes on state governments and the U.S. economy that could linger for decades. By one Federal Reserve estimate, the country lost almost an entire year's worth of economic activity – nearly $14 trillion – during the recession from 2007 to 2009. The deep and persistent losses of the recession forced states to make broad cuts in spending and public workforces. For businesses, the recession led to changes in expansion plans and worker compensation. And for individual Americans, it has meant a future postponed, as fewer buy houses and start families. Five years after the financial crash, the country is still struggling to recover." In the aftermath of [previous] recessions there were strong recoveries. That is not true this time around," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "This is more like the pace getting out of the Great Depression." For years, housing served as the backbone of economic growth and as an investment opportunity that propelled generations of Americans into the middle class.

But the financial crisis burst the housing bubble and devastated the real estate market, leaving millions facing foreclosure, millions more underwater, and generally stripping Americans of years' worth of accumulated wealth. Anthony B. Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University, said even the nascent housing recovery can't escape the effects of the recession. Home values may have rebounded, he said, but the factors driving that recovery are very different than those that drove the growth in the market in the 1990s and 2000s. Sanders said more than half of recent home purchases have been made in cash, which signals investors and hedge funds are taking advantage of cheap properties. That could freeze out average buyers and also mean little real economic growth underpins those sales. Those effects are clear in homeownership rates, which continue to decline. In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. homeownership rate was 65.1%, according to Census Bureau data, the lowest since 1995. In the mid-2000s, it topped 69%, capping a steady pace of growth that began after the early 1990s recession. Reversing that will be a challenge, in part because credit has tightened and lending rules have been toughened in an effort to avoid the mistakes that inflated the housing bubble in the first place.

"Credit expanded, and now contracted, and it's going to be tight like this as far as the eye can see," Sanders said. "We so destroyed so many households when the bubble burst, there's just not the groundswell to fill the demand again." Some are skeptical that the tight credit market and new efforts to regulate the financial markets, like the Dodd-Frank law, will prove lasting. Americans have often responded with calls for regulation after financial sector-driven crises and accusations of mismanagement, according to Brookings' Burtless. "But eventually, those fires cool down," he said. "It's not as though this memory of what can go wrong sticks with us very long." That can be seen in the intense efforts to water down Dodd-Frank's regulations, Burtless said. Federal regulators have already made moves to relax requirements for some potential homeowners who were victims of the recent housing crisis. Even those steps and an unlikely return to easy credit might not fuel a full housing recovery without economic growth to back it up. As Sanders, referring to the growth in low-wage and part-time employment, put it: "At those wages, it's tough to scramble together down payments and mortgages’’.

 "Turmoil in the housing market has already reshaped the makeup of households nationwide. Homeownership rates among people with children under 18 fell sharply during the recession, declining 15% between 2005 and 2011, according to Census Bureau data. In some states it was far worse. For Michigan, the decline in homeownership was 23%, and in Arizona and California it was 22%. Lackluster job growth has outlived the downturn. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed wages for all workers, when adjusted for inflation, grew just 1.5% between 2000 and 2007. But the last five years wiped out even those modest gains—the study found wages declined for the bottom 70% of all workers since the recession began. However, some areas have seen manufacturing jobs climb back from recessionary lows, and the energy sector has been a boon for some Midwestern states. One hopeful sign for workers is the shift away from manufacturing growth in the typically low-wage South back toward the Rust Belt states, reversing a movement that was taking hold before the downturn. That trend is documented in a 2012 report from the Brookings Institution, "Locating American Manufacturing: Trends in the Geography of Production.’’

"From 2000 to 2010, both the Midwest and South lost manufacturing jobs at about the national rate of 34%. But the Midwest has seen nearly half of all manufacturing jobs gained since 2010, almost double the increase in the South. For Michigan, the growth was 19%; in Indiana, 12%. Even with that growth, there are caveats. Autoworker unions have ceded ground with companies on wages and benefits, for example, allowing new hires to work for lower pay and fewer benefits than those who've held their jobs longer. Unemployment remains stubbornly high in some states, and the jobs created have leaned heavily toward part-time and low-pay work. A study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve found the proportion of U.S. jobs that are part-time is high, as many of the jobs lost during the recession have not returned.

Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
Q. Downturn

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.

Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything 'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I, or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar to the understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken in India. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is in their own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape, cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared to that of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? The onus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify?

The writer compares diversity of one European country to the diversity of ____________.

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.

What does the word stormy in the expression the stormy Cape of Good Hope mean?

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?

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it. Each question has 4 options. Choose the correct option/answer for each question:

I worked for a brief while in a college in Delhi, and among my more uncomfortable memories is a language exercise, I gave a group of eight undergraduates: I asked them to imagine that they had already graduated and wanted them to write an application for a suitable job. Seven of the eight students wrote applications for the jobs of clerks. Even in one of the good universities, and in a college that had a reputation for its academic standards, the system has snuffed out all youthful ambition.

Choose the correct option from the given passage:
 What exercise did the author give the students?
 He gave them___________