Directions (1-7): In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
Q1. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a) Awful
(b) Estrangement
(c) Skirmish
(d) Armistice
(e) Excellent
Q2. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a) Standoff
(b) Untimely
(c) Convenient
(d)Veneer
(e) Sociable
Q3. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a) Mired
(b) Truced
(c) Concurred
(d) Ill-timed
(e) Separated
Q4. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a)Demarcation
(b) Conflagration
(c) Contemplate
(d) Belated
(e) Unforgiving
Q5. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a) Inferno
(b) Abandon
(c) Instrumentality
(d) Vulnerable
(e) Inadvertence
Q6. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a)Resilient
(b) Ignorance
(c) Quieted
(d) Endangered
(e) Despoiling
Q7. The traumatic months of the national lockdown lay bare many troubling truths about the profound ___________ (1) of people of privilege from the working poor. They reveal a society in which the privileged are extraordinarily comfortable with inequality, and wanting in elementary empathy and solidarity. They confirm that the __________ (2) of modernity and the progressive, egalitarian values of the Constitution remain — in the prophetic words of Babasaheb Ambedkar — no deeper than a coat of paint.
In this writer’s book, Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India, I described the Indian rich and middle-class to be among the most uncaring in the world, _____________ (3) still in the cruelties of caste and class, with a singular capacity to look at injustice and suffering and just turn their faces away. I wrote of the exile of the poor from our conscience and our consciousness. The lockdown disclosed precisely how absolute and _________ (4) is this exile. For any young person growing up in middle-class homes, the poor are visible at every turn, but only in their ____________ (5) as people who exist to service our every need. They never know them as classmates, as colleagues or competitors at work, or as friends in a playground or cinema theatre.
When the COVID-19 infection hit us, we saw the working poor suddenly as dangerous potential spreaders. We wanted them suddenly at bay. We ignored that it was not the poor who ____________ (6) us, but we who endangered the poor when they came into contact with us. After all, it was people who could afford flight tickets who brought the novel coronavirus into India. We welcomed the strategy of a lockdown — possibly, the harshest and largest in the world, with the smallest relief package. We adjusted also to working from home, secure that our salaries and savings would tide us through. With running water on tap, we washed our hands regularly. We were untroubled because our health insurance would pay for treatment in expensive private hospitals. We _____________ (7) with boredom and occasional depression, but it was a time also to rebuild our bonds with our families.
(a) Amplified
(b) Shirked
(c) Grappled
(d)Plundered
(e) Thrashed
Directions (8-15): In the following passage, certain words which may be either contextually or grammatically incorrect have been highlighted and numbered. For each highlighted word four alternatives are provided that could replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Option corresponding to that word will be your answer. If none of the given word could replace the highlighted word then choose option (e), i.e. ‘None of these’ as your answer.
Q8. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a) Slapdash
(b) Cognizance
(c) Punctilious
(d) Inescapable
(e) none of these
Q9. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a)Inevitable
(b)Rigorous
(c) Lurch
(d) Persistent
(e) none of these
Q10. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a)Rudderless
(b)Perpetual
(c) Unwary
(d) Self-abnegation
(e) none of these
Q11. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a) Intervention
(b)Perennial
(c) Intensify
(d) Seasonal
(e) none of these
Q12. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a)Uncorroborated
(b) Reluctance
(c) Snarl
(d) Entangle
(e) none of these
Q13. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a)Precarious
(b) Animosity
(c) Abdication
(d) Presumptive
(e) none of these
Q14. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a) Unravel
(b)Stellar
(c) Stranded
(d) maneuvers
(e) none of these
Q15. It is a matter of relief that the Supreme Court has at last taken cognizant (8) of the plight of millions of inter-State workers looking for transport home and relief from the unrelenting misery unleashed on them by the lockdown. This could have taken place seven or eight weeks earlier, when petitions were filed before the top court on behalf of those left in the frantic (9) across India after the Centre announced a lockdown, with just four hours’ notice. With a kind of self-effacement and paramount (10) not in keeping with its institutional history, the Court had then accepted the government’s sweeping claim that there were no migrants on the roads any more, and that the initial exodus of workers from cities to their home States had been set off by “fake news” to the effect that the lockdown would last for months. In an unfortunately limited surveillance (11), the Court merely advised the police to treat the workers on the roads with kindness and directed the media to highlight the Centre’s version of the developments.
The Court’s divulgence (12) to intervene may have stemmed from a belief in letting the executive handle the fallout of an unprecedented global crisis, but, in the process, it abandoned its primary responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, especially of those most vulnerable. Such was the resultant dismay that retired judges called it out for apparent dismal (13) of its duty. A former High Court judge even said the ghost of ADM Jabalpur was lingering, in an unflattering reference to an Emergency-era judgment, now mercifully overruled, that held that personal liberty was not absolute during a state of emergency. Whether it was shamed into taking recognition of the issue or it felt that the situation is ripe for intervention, one should now expect the Court to take a more critical look at the government’s lapses, and emulate the perish(14) role that High Courts are playing in holding administrations accountable. The top court must now find out if the Centre, which imposed a stringent lockdown to buy time for preparing the health infrastructure, had discharged its responsibilities. The government should also do more than asking its law officers to stipulate (15) against activists, denounce the media and question the patriotism of those critical of its actions. A national tragedy requires a more statesmanlike response.
(a) Fulminate
(b)Diminutive
(c) Colossal
(d) Vague
(e) none of these
Solutions
S1. Ans. (b)
Sol. “Estrangement” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (b) is the right answer choice.
Awful- Very bad or unpleasant.
Disgusting, Nasty, Terrible, Dreadful
Estrangement- the fact of no longer being on friendly terms or part of a social group.
Skirmish- An episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
Fight, Battle, Clash, Conflict
Armistice- an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time; a truce.
S2. Ans. (d)
Sol. “Veneer” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (d) is the right answer choice.
Veneer- a thin decorative covering of fine wood applied to a coarser wood or other material/ an attractive appearance that covers or disguises someone or something’s true nature or feelings.
Standoff- A situation in which agreement in an argument does not seem possible.
Deadlock, Gridlock, Impasse, Logjam
Sociable- willing to talk and engage in activities with other people; friendly.
S3. Ans. (a)
Sol. “Mired” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (a) is the right answer choice.
Mired- involve someone or something in (a difficult situation).
Truced- A temporary cessation or suspension of hostilities by agreement of the opposing sides; an armistice.
Concurred- be of the same opinion; agree.
S4. Ans. (e)
Sol. “Unforgiving” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (e) is the right answer choice.
Demarcation- the action of fixing the boundary or limits of something.
Conflagration- an extensive fire which destroys a great deal of land or property.
Contemplate- look thoughtfully for a long time at.
S5. Ans. (c)
Sol. “Instrumentality” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (c) is the right answer choice.
Instrumentality- the fact or quality of serving as an instrument or means to an end; agency OR a thing which serves as a means to an end.
Inferno- a large fire that is dangerously out of control.
Abandon- cease to support or look after (someone); desert.
Inadvertence- a result of inattention : oversight.
S6. Ans. (d)
Sol. “Endangered” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (d) is the right answer choice.
Endangered- someone or something at risk or in danger.
Resilient- (of a person or animal) able to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions.
Despoiling- stealing or violently removing valuable possessions from; plunder.
S7. Ans. (c)
Sol. “Grappled” ” fits the blank appropriately. Hence, option (c) is the right answer choice.
Grappled- engaged in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.
Amplified- increase the volume of (sound), especially using an amplifier.
Shirked- avoided or neglected (a duty or responsibility).
Plundered- stealing goods from (a place or person), typically using force and in a time of war or civil disorder.
S8. Ans. (b)
Sol. “cognizance” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (b) is the right answer choice.
Cognizant- having knowledge or awareness.
Cognizance- knowledge or awareness.
Slapdash- done too hurriedly and carelessly.
Punctilious- showing great attention to detail or correct behaviour.
S9. Ans. (c)
Sol. “Lurch” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (c) is the right answer choice.
Lurch- make an abrupt, unsteady, uncontrolled movement or series of movements; stagger.
Frantic- distraught with fear, anxiety, or other emotion.
Inevitable- certain to happen; unavoidable.
Rigorous- extremely thorough and careful.
S10. Ans. (d)
Sol. “self-abnegation” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (d) is the right answer choice.
Self-abnegation- the denial or abasement of oneself.
Rudderless- lacking a clear sense of one’s aims or principles.
Perpetual- never ending or changing.
Unwary- not cautious of possible dangers or problems.
S11. Ans. (a)
Sol. “Intervention” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (a) is the right answer choice.
Intervention- the action or process of intervening OR interference by a state in another’s affairs.
Perennial- lasting or existing for a long or apparently infinite time; enduring or continually recurring.
S12. Ans. (b)
Sol. “Reluctance” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (b) is the right answer choice.
Reluctance- unwillingness or disinclination to do something.
Divulgence- the action of revealing private or sensitive information.
Uncorroborated- not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information.
Snarl- (of a person) say something in an angry, bad-tempered voice.
OR (of an animal such as a dog) make an aggressive growl with bared teeth.
Entangle- cause to become twisted together with or caught in.
OR involve (someone) in difficulties or complicated circumstances from which it is difficult to escape.
S13. Ans. (c)
Sol. “Abdication” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (c) is the right answer choice.
Dismal- causing a mood of gloom or depression.
Abdication- an act of abdicating or renouncing the throne.
Animosity- strong hostility.
Presumptive- of the nature of a presumption; presumed in the absence of further information.
Precarious- not securely held or in position; dangerously likely to fall or collapse.
S14. Ans. (b)
Sol. “Stellar” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (b) is the right answer choice.
Perish- die, especially in a violent or sudden way.
Stellar- featuring or having the quality of a star performer or performers.
Unravel- investigate and solve or explain (something complicated or puzzling).
Stranded- left without the means to move from somewhere.
Manoeuvres – a movement or series of moves requiring skill and care.
S15. Ans. (a)
Sol. “Fulminate” can replace the highlighted word to make the given sentence both grammatically and contextually correct. Hence, option (a) is the right answer choice.
Stipulate- demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
Fulminate- express vehement protest.
Diminutive- extremely or unusually small.
Colossal- extremely large or great.
Vague- of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
Click Here to Register for Bank Exams 2021 Preparation Material
रक्त संबंध (ब्ल...
Current Affairs 2024 in Hindi: वीक...
SBI Clerk 2024: क्या फाइ...
