Verbal Ability ...

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

There is a widespread myth that Hitler had a personal ambition to kill all the Jews in the world. Some go so far as to believe that Hitler's primary motivation in rising to leadership in Germany and starting World War II was to kill the Jews. This is not supported by any part of the historical record, which indicates instead that his overt political motivation was to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I, and that his covert personal motivation was probably to glorify himself.
The unspeakable pathos of the Holocaust was all too real, but it was not motivated by Hitler's personal feelings about Jews. Instead, the millions of innocent civilians including women and children who perished in horrifying death camps were the collateral damage of a war that had no mercy for any segment of humanity. The poor Jewish victims of the Holocaust had been left helpless because they lacked the protection of their own nation during an era of violent nationalism. The sickening extremities of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka are too massive to be blamed on any single perpetrator, and it's tragic to realize that most of the horror could have been avoided if nations like the United States of America had been willing to take in Jews as refugees during the many years that Nazi bureaucrats tried to arrange their deportation.
The Holocaust happened, but there is no historical basis at all for the idea that Hitler had ever had a master plan to slaughter Jews.
The Nazi movement's most active opposition during the period of Hitler's rise to power were the various German Communist parties, which also strove to overthrow the weak Weimar Republic. In the years after World War I in Europe, Jews were widely considered to be Communists, as indeed they often were. A coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish Communists had taken over Russia in the final year of World War I and fear of Jewish/Communist revolution was absolutely rampant all over Europe after the war was over. Most significantly, there had been an attempted German Communist revolution in 1919, led by two prominent and heroic German Jews, Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Liebknecht.
Today when we think of European Jews, we think of Anne Frank or Schindler's list. But the fear of Communist revolution formed the entire context for the political meaning of the term "Jew" among the parties fighting for power in 1920s and 1930s Germany. Just as today in the United States of America the word "Muslim” is often used (unfairly) as a synonym for "terrorist", in Weimar Germany the word "Jew" was often used as a synonym for "Communist". This important but often forgotten fact explains a lot about the root causes of the Holocaust.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer.

After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German defence establishment was eager to improve its compromised communications system, and recognised the potential of a signalling device that had originally been made for the business market. Dr. Arthur Scherbius had developed his 'Enigma' machine, capable of transcribing coded information, in the hope of interesting commercial companies in secure communications. In 1923 he set up his Cipher Machines Corporation in Berlin to manufacture this product, and within three years the German navy was producing its own version, followed in 1928 by the army and in 1933 by the air force. Enigma allowed an operator to type in a message, then scramble it by means of three to five notched wheels, or rotors, which displayed different letters of the alphabet. The receiver needed to know the exact settings of these rotors in order to reconstitute the coded text. Over the years the basic machine became more complicated, as German code experts added plugs with electronic circuits. Britain and her allies first understood the problems posed by this machine in 1931, when a German spy, Hans Thilo Schmidt, allowed his French spymasters to photograph stolen Enigma operating manuals, although neither French nor British cryptanalysts could at first make headway in breaking the Enigma cipher. It was only after they had handed over details to the Polish Cipher Bureau that progress was made. Helped by its closer links to the German engineering industry, the Poles managed to reconstruct an Enigma machine, complete with internal wiring, and to read the Wehrmacht's messages between 1933 and 1938.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer.

After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German defence establishment was eager to improve its compromised communications system, and recognised the potential of a signalling device that had originally been made for the business market. Dr Arthur Scherbius had developed his 'Enigma' machine, capable of transcribing coded information, in the hope of interesting commercial companies in secure communications. In 1923 he set up his Cipher Machines Corporation in Berlin to manufacture this product, and within three years the German navy was producing its own version, followed in 1928 by the army and in 1933 by the air force. Enigma allowed an operator to type in a message, then scramble it by means of three to five notched wheels, or rotors, which displayed different letters of the alphabet. The receiver needed to know the exact settings of these rotors in order to reconstitute the coded text. Over the years the basic machine became more complicated, as German code experts added plugs with electronic circuits. Britain and her allies first understood the problems posed by this machine in 1931, when a German spy, Hans Thilo Schmidt, allowed his French spymasters to photograph stolen Enigma operating manuals, although neither French nor British cryptanalysts could at first make headway in breaking the Enigma cipher. It was only after they had handed over details to the Polish Cipher Bureau that progress was made. Helped by its closer links to the German engineering industry, the Poles managed to reconstruct an Enigma machine, complete with internal wiring, and to read the Wehrmacht's messages between 1933 and 1938.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer.

After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the German defence establishment was eager to improve its compromised communications system, and recognised the potential of a signalling device that had originally been made for the business market. Dr Arthur Scherbius had developed his 'Enigma' machine, capable of transcribing coded information, in the hope of interesting commercial companies in secure communications. In 1923 he set up his Cipher Machines Corporation in Berlin to manufacture this product, and within three years the German navy was producing its own version, followed in 1928 by the army and in 1933 by the air force. Enigma allowed an operator to type in a message, then scramble it by means of three to five notched wheels, or rotors, which displayed different letters of the alphabet. The receiver needed to know the exact settings of these rotors in order to reconstitute the coded text. Over the years the basic machine became more complicated, as German code experts added plugs with electronic circuits. Britain and her allies first understood the problems posed by this machine in 1931, when a German spy, Hans Thilo Schmidt, allowed his French spymasters to photograph stolen Enigma operating manuals, although neither French nor British cryptanalysts could at first make headway in breaking the Enigma cipher. It was only after they had handed over details to the Polish Cipher Bureau that progress was made. Helped by its closer links to the German engineering industry, the Poles managed to reconstruct an Enigma machine, complete with internal wiring, and to read the Wehrmacht's messages between 1933 and 1938.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol, and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

A country where 270 million people live below the 'poverty line', obesity seems to be a distant issue, meant for the rich kids of first world. But India is under siege: junk food, alcohol and sedentary lifestyle are leading us to silent self-destruction, making one in every five Indian men and women either obese or overweight.
According to a study published in the noted journal Lancet, India is just behind US and China in this global hazard list of top 10 countries with highest number of obese people. The study titled 'Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013' - used data collected by international bodies and organisations in various countries like India over three decades. The US topped the list with 13 percent of the obese people worldwide in 2013, while China and India together accounted for 15 percent of the world's obese population, with 46 million and 30 million obese people, respectively. According to the study, number of overweight and obese people globally increased from 857 million in 1980 to 2.1 billion in 2013. This is one-third of the world's population.
Overweight in adults is categorised as Body Mass Index of 25 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 and obesity as Body Mass Index of more than 30 kg/m2. In 2010, overweight and obesity were estimated to cause 3 to 4 million deaths, 3.9 percent of years of life lost, and 3.8 percent of disability-adjusted life-years worldwide, the study said. If we see the graph of obesity, from 1999 onwards Indians started gaining weight due to urbanisation. There has been gradual economical improvement in our status. The entrance of modern technology and Internet has turned people lazy and stagnant.
With lifestyle disorders forcing more and more people to reel under excess body weight, even relatively younger people are developing joint disorders and knee pain. Excessive weight is associated with a series of health problems, including blood pressure, diabetes, and cardiovascular ailments. Experts say the prevalence of obesity is greater among women than men and is increasing among children and adolescents rapidly.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions.

Choose the most appropriate A deal with the Devil, pact with the Devil or Faustian bargain is a cultural motif widespread in the West. According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favors. Those favors vary by the tale but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Regardless, the bargain is a dangerous one, for the price of the Fiend's service is the wagerer's soul. It was usually thought that the person who had made a pact also promised the demon to kill children or consecrate them to the Devil at the moment of birth (many midwives were accused of this, due to the number of children that died at birth in the Middle Ages and Renaissance), take part in Sabbaths, have relations with demons, and sometimes engender children from a succubus, or incubus in the case of women.
The pact can be oral or written. An oral pact is made by means of invocations, conjurations, or rituals to attract the demon; once the conjurer thinks the demon is present, he asks for the wanted favour and offers his soul in exchange, and no evidence is left of the pact; but according to some witch trials and inquisitions that were performed, even the oral pact left evidence, namely the diabolical mark, an indelible mark where the marked person had been touched by the devil to seal the pact. The mark could be used as a proof to determine that the pact was made. It was also believed that on the spot where the mark was left, the marked person could feel no pain. A written pact consists in the same forms of attracting the demon but includes a written act, usually signed with the conjurer's blood. Forms of these include contracts or simply signing your name into Satan's Red Book.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions.

Choose the most appropriate A deal with the Devil, pact with the Devil, or Faustian bargain is a cultural motif widespread in the West. According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favors. Those favors vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Regardless, the bargain is a dangerous one, for the price of the Fiend's service is the wagerer's soul. It was usually thought that the person who had made a pact also promised the demon to kill children or consecrate them to the Devil at the moment of birth (many midwives were accused of this, due to the number of children that died at birth in the Middle Ages and Renaissance), take part in Sabbaths, have relations with demons, and sometimes engender children from a succubus, or incubus in the case of women.
The pact can be oral or written. An oral pact is made by means of invocations, conjurations, or rituals to attract the demon; once the conjurer thinks the demon is present, he asks for the wanted favour and offers his soul in exchange, and no evidence is left of the pact; but according to some witch trials and inquisitions that were performed, even the oral pact left evidence, namely the diabolical mark, an indelible mark where the marked person had been touched by the devil to seal the pact. The mark could be used as a proof to determine that the pact was made. It was also believed that on the spot where the mark was left, the marked person could feel no pain. A written pact consists in the same forms of attracting the demon, but includes a written act, usually signed with the conjurer's blood. Forms of these include contracts or simply signing your name into Satan's Red Book.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions.

Choose the most appropriate A deal with the Devil, pact with the Devil, or Faustian bargain is a cultural motif widespread in the West. According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favors. Those favors vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Regardless, the bargain is a dangerous one, for the price of the Fiend's service is the wagerer's soul. It was usually thought that the person who had made a pact also promised the demon to kill children or consecrate them to the Devil at the moment of birth (many midwives were accused of this, due to the number of children that died at birth in the Middle Ages and Renaissance), take part in Sabbaths, have relations with demons, and sometimes engender children from a succubus, or incubus in the case of women.
The pact can be oral or written. An oral pact is made by means of invocations, conjurations, or rituals to attract the demon; once the conjurer thinks the demon is present, he asks for the wanted favour and offers his soul in exchange, and no evidence is left of the pact; but according to some witch trials and inquisitions that were performed, even the oral pact left evidence, namely the diabolical mark, an indelible mark where the marked person had been touched by the devil to seal the pact. The mark could be used as a proof to determine that the pact was made. It was also believed that on the spot where the mark was left, the marked person could feel no pain. A written pact consists in the same forms of attracting the demon, but includes a written act, usually signed with the conjurer's blood. Forms of these include contracts or simply signing your name into Satan's Red Book.