Verbal Ability ...

Many critics and some friends of Mahatma Gandhi have found fault with his desire to introduce simpler methods of spinning and weaving and to do away with much of the complicated machinery of Modern Civilisation. The reason why they object is that they fear such methods mean not progress towards a higher state but relapse into a primitive condition of civilisation or even of barbarism. His denunciation of the age of machinery and of the Industrial System has been criticised by many as the ravings of a visionary and of one who is merely an impracticable idealist. This is a strange criticism to come from those who give their allegiance to a form of civilisation or 'Culture' which has led to the unprecedented horrors of the late European War and the century-old disgraces of the Industrial System. Is this present modern civilisation so very desirable that we should wish it to continue in perpetuity? Every civilisation in the History of Man has reached a certain point after which there has been one possibility only for it and that was absolute relapse into semi-darkness in order to give place to a new and higher civilisation. The common starting point of all the civilisations is a kind of night-time. In order that the Babylonian (or Despotic) Civilisation might give way to the Roman (or Heroic), and the Roman give way to the Modern (or Intellectual) Civilisation, it was necessary for each in turn to sink completely into this common night-time. Without this entire destruction of the ancient structure, there would have been only a patchwork of the old, and not a harmonious building of the New. As Christ said: "Ye cannot put old wine into new bottles." The debris of the Past has to be cleared away in order to make way for the structure of the Future. Now with regard to Modern Civilisation, all the signs of the times show that it has failed lamentably and is gradually tottering to a dishonoured grave. Why make any attempts to prop up what Nature so evidently has decided to throw on the scrap-heap? Such attempts are contrary to the teaching of past history. But anything, which tends to reach the common roots of all civilisations, should be encouraged. In order that the spiritual civilisation of the Future may have a real chance of growing in an atmosphere congenial to it, Mahatma Gandhi's demonstration of the right path should be welcomed. His emphasis on simplicity of life and on the simplification of the machinery of living must be realised as a supremely essential condition of the coming of the new Era. In the civilisation of the Future, an Era of natural harmonious living will be inaugurated, and artificial, luxurious and pompous living will be entirely rooted out.

Simplicity of life being a condition of spiritual perfection, we may look forward to an Era of Civilisation in the Future, greatly superior to all the civilisations of the Past, if only we accept simplicity of life as the best method of living. The failure and decline of Western or Modern Civilisation need not alarm us; for the experience of History is full of similar declines of once powerful cultures. When Babylonian Civilisation had reached its height, it had to come down to what we may term the zero-point of all civilisation from which Roman Civilisation had made its start. But when Roman Civilisation had reached its zenith, it was much superior to the zenith Civilisation of Babylon, as the zenith Babylonian was superior to the zero-civilisation. And so also of full-fledged Modern Civilisation. We may say that until it returns to the common zero-point, there is no hope of a full and perfect development of a civilisation moulded by spiritual ideals.

Let critics of Mahatma Gandhi then look to History before they condemn him for trying to bring this much belauded Modern Civilisation down to the common starting point of all great civilisations. We are at the dawn of a New Era, and Mahatma Gandhi is the one leader who shows to us the right path. He at least is watering the roots, while all others who try to keep alive the Civilisation of the Western nations are like foolish gardeners who lavish water on the withering leaves of a dying tree and never think of watering its roots.

Many critics and some friends of Mahatma Gandhi have found fault with his desire to introduce simpler methods of spinning and weaving and to do away with much of the complicated machinery of Modern Civilisation. The reason why they object is that they fear such methods mean not progress towards a higher state but relapse into a primitive condition of civilisation or even of barbarism. His denunciation of the age of machinery and of the Industrial System has been criticised by many as the ravings of a visionary and of one who is merely an impracticable idealist. This is a strange criticism to come from those who give their allegiance to a form of civilisation or 'Culture' which has led to the unprecedented horrors of the late European War and the century-old disgraces of the Industrial System. Is this present modern civilisation so very desirable that we should wish it to continue in perpetuity? Every civilisation in the History of Man has reached a certain point after which there has been one possibility only for it and that was absolute relapse into semi-darkness in order to give place to a new and higher civilisation. The common starting point of all the civilisations is a kind of night-time. In order that the Babylonian (or Despotic) Civilisation might give way to the Roman (or Heroic), and the Roman give way to the Modern (or Intellectual) Civilisation, it was necessary for each in turn to sink completely into this common night-time. Without this entire destruction of the ancient structure, there would have been only a patchwork of the old, and not a harmonious building of the New. As Christ said: "Ye cannot put old wine into new bottles." The debris of the Past has to be cleared away in order to make way for the structure of the Future. Now with regard to Modern Civilisation, all the signs of the times show that it has failed lamentably and is gradually tottering to a dishonoured grave. Why make any attempts to prop up what Nature so evidently has decided to throw on the scrap-heap? Such attempts are contrary to the teaching of past history. But anything, which tends to reach the common roots of all civilisations, should be encouraged. In order that the spiritual civilisation of the Future may have a real chance of growing in an atmosphere congenial to it, Mahatma Gandhi's demonstration of the right path should be welcomed. His emphasis on simplicity of life and on the simplification of the machinery of living must be realised as a supremely essential condition of the coming of the new Era. In the civilisation of the Future, an Era of natural harmonious living will be inaugurated, and artificial, luxurious and pompous living will be entirely rooted out.

Simplicity of life being a condition of spiritual perfection, we may look forward to an Era of Civilisation in the Future, greatly superior to all the civilisations of the Past, if only we accept simplicity of life as the best method of living. The failure and decline of Western or Modern Civilisation need not alarm us; for the experience of History is full of similar declines of once powerful cultures. When Babylonian Civilisation had reached its height, it had to come down to what we may term the zero-point of all civilisation from which Roman Civilisation had made its start. But when Roman Civilisation had reached its zenith, it was much superior to the zenith Civilisation of Babylon, as the zenith Babylonian was superior to the zero-civilisation. And so also of full-fledged Modern Civilisation. We may say that until it returns to the common zero-point, there is no hope of a full and perfect development of a civilisation moulded by spiritual ideals.

Let critics of Mahatma Gandhi then look to History before they condemn him for trying to bring this much belauded Modern Civilisation down to the common starting point of all great civilisations. We are at the dawn of a New Era, and Mahatma Gandhi is the one leader who shows to us the right path. He at least is watering the roots, while all others who try to keep alive the Civilisation of the Western nations are like foolish gardeners who lavish water on the withering leaves of a dying tree and never think of watering its roots.

Many critics and some friends of Mahatma Gandhi have found fault with his desire to introduce simpler methods of spinning and weaving and to do away with much of the complicated machinery of Modern Civilisation. The reason why they object is that they fear such methods mean not progress towards a higher state but relapse into a primitive condition of civilisation or even of barbarism. His denunciation of the age of machinery and of the Industrial System has been criticised by many as the ravings of a visionary and of one who is merely an impracticable idealist. This is a strange criticism to come from those who give their allegiance to a form of civilisation or 'Culture' which has led to the unprecedented horrors of the late European War and the century-old disgraces of the Industrial System. Is this present modern civilisation so very desirable that we should wish it to continue in perpetuity? Every civilisation in the History of Man has reached a certain point after which there has been one possibility only for it and that was absolute relapse into semi-darkness in order to give place to a new and higher civilisation. The common starting point of all the civilisations is a kind of night-time. In order that the Babylonian (or Despotic) Civilisation might give way to the Roman (or Heroic), and the Roman give way to the Modern (or Intellectual) Civilisation, it was necessary for each in turn to sink completely into this common night-time. Without this entire destruction of the ancient structure, there would have been only a patchwork of the old, and not a harmonious building of the New. As Christ said: "Ye cannot put old wine into new bottles." The debris of the Past has to be cleared away in order to make way for the structure of the Future. Now with regard to Modern Civilisation, all the signs of the times show that it has failed lamentably and is gradually tottering to a dishonoured grave. Why make any attempts to prop up what Nature so evidently has decided to throw on the scrap-heap? Such attempts are contrary to the teaching of past history. But anything, which tends to reach the common roots of all civilisations, should be encouraged. In order that the spiritual civilisation of the Future may have a real chance of growing in an atmosphere congenial to it, Mahatma Gandhi's demonstration of the right path should be welcomed. His emphasis on simplicity of life and on the simplification of the machinery of living must be realised as a supremely essential condition of the coming of the new Era. In the civilisation of the Future, an Era of natural harmonious living will be inaugurated, and artificial, luxurious and pompous living will be entirely rooted out.

Simplicity of life being a condition of spiritual perfection, we may look forward to an Era of Civilisation in the Future, greatly superior to all the civilisations of the Past, if only we accept simplicity of life as the best method of living. The failure and decline of Western or Modern Civilisation need not alarm us; for the experience of History is full of similar declines of once powerful cultures. When Babylonian Civilisation had reached its height, it had to come down to what we may term the zero-point of all civilisation from which Roman Civilisation had made its start. But when Roman Civilisation had reached its zenith, it was much superior to the zenith Civilisation of Babylon, as the zenith Babylonian was superior to the zero-civilisation. And so also of full-fledged Modern Civilisation. We may say that until it returns to the common zero-point, there is no hope of a full and perfect development of a civilisation moulded by spiritual ideals.

Let critics of Mahatma Gandhi then look to History before they condemn him for trying to bring this much belauded Modern Civilisation down to the common starting point of all great civilisations. We are at the dawn of a New Era, and Mahatma Gandhi is the one leader who shows to us the right path. He at least is watering the roots, while all others who try to keep alive the Civilisation of the Western nations are like foolish gardeners who lavish water on the withering leaves of a dying tree and never think of watering its roots.

Many critics and some friends of Mahatma Gandhi have found fault with his desire to introduce simpler methods of spinning and weaving and to do away with much of the complicated machinery of Modern Civilisation. The reason why they object is that they fear such methods mean not progress towards a higher state but relapse into a primitive condition of civilisation or even of barbarism. His denunciation of the age of machinery and of the Industrial System has been criticised by many as the ravings of a visionary and of one who is merely an impracticable idealist. This is a strange criticism to come from those who give their allegiance to a form of civilisation or 'Culture' which has led to the unprecedented horrors of the late European War and the century-old disgraces of the Industrial System. Is this present modern civilisation so very desirable that we should wish it to continue in perpetuity? Every civilisation in the History of Man has reached a certain point after which there has been one possibility only for it and that was absolute relapse into semi-darkness in order to give place to a new and higher civilisation. The common starting point of all the civilisations is a kind of night-time. In order that the Babylonian (or Despotic) Civilisation might give way to the Roman (or Heroic), and the Roman give way to the Modern (or Intellectual) Civilisation, it was necessary for each in turn to sink completely into this common night-time. Without this entire destruction of the ancient structure, there would have been only a patchwork of the old, and not a harmonious building of the New. As Christ said: "Ye cannot put old wine into new bottles." The debris of the Past has to be cleared away in order to make way for the structure of the Future. Now with regard to Modern Civilisation, all the signs of the times show that it has failed lamentably and is gradually tottering to a dishonoured grave. Why make any attempts to prop up what Nature so evidently has decided to throw on the scrap-heap? Such attempts are contrary to the teaching of past history. But anything, which tends to reach the common roots of all civilisations, should be encouraged. In order that the spiritual civilisation of the Future may have a real chance of growing in an atmosphere congenial to it, Mahatma Gandhi's demonstration of the right path should be welcomed. His emphasis on simplicity of life and on the simplification of the machinery of living must be realised as a supremely essential condition of the coming of the new Era. In the civilisation of the Future, an Era of natural harmonious living will be inaugurated, and artificial, luxurious and pompous living will be entirely rooted out.

Simplicity of life being a condition of spiritual perfection, we may look forward to an Era of Civilisation in the Future, greatly superior to all the civilisations of the Past, if only we accept simplicity of life as the best method of living. The failure and decline of Western or Modern Civilisation need not alarm us; for the experience of History is full of similar declines of once powerful cultures. When Babylonian Civilisation had reached its height, it had to come down to what we may term the zero-point of all civilisation from which Roman Civilisation had made its start. But when Roman Civilisation had reached its zenith, it was much superior to the zenith Civilisation of Babylon, as the zenith Babylonian was superior to the zero-civilisation. And so also of full-fledged Modern Civilisation. We may say that until it returns to the common zero-point, there is no hope of a full and perfect development of a civilisation moulded by spiritual ideals.

Let critics of Mahatma Gandhi then look to History before they condemn him for trying to bring this much belauded Modern Civilisation down to the common starting point of all great civilisations. We are at the dawn of a New Era, and Mahatma Gandhi is the one leader who shows to us the right path. He at least is watering the roots, while all others who try to keep alive the Civilisation of the Western nations are like foolish gardeners who lavish water on the withering leaves of a dying tree and never think of watering its roots.

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The five teenage boys were sitting in a parked car in a gated community in Melbourne, Florida when a police officer pulled up behind them. Officer Justin Valutsky closed one of the rear doors, which had been ajar, and told them to stay in the car. He peered into the drivers’ side window of the white Hyundai SUV and asked what the teens were doing there. It was a Saturday night in March 2015, and they told Valutsky they were visiting a friend for a sleepover.

Valutsky told them there had been a string of car break-ins recently in the area. Then, after questioning them some more, he made an unexpected demand: He asked which one of them wanted to give him a DNA sample.

After a long pause, Adam, a slight 15-year-old with curly hair and braces, said, “Okay, I guess I’ll do it.” Valutsky showed Adam how to rub a long cotton swab around the inside of his cheek, then gave him a consent form to sign and took his thumbprint. He sealed Adam’s swab in an envelope. Then he let the boys go. Telling the story later, Adam said “I thought it meant we had to” about the officer’s request.

Over the last decade, collecting DNA from people who are not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime has become an increasingly routine practice for police in smaller cities not only in Florida, but in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well.

While the largest cities typically operate public labs and feed DNA samples into the FBI’s national database, cities like Melbourne have assembled databases of their own, often in partnership with private labs that offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.

And to compile samples for comparison, some jurisdictions also have quietly begun asking people to turn over DNA voluntarily during traffic stops, or even during what amount to chance encounters with police. In Melbourne, riding a bike at night without two functioning lights can lead to DNA swab — even if the rider is a minor.

“In Florida law, basically, if we can ask consent, and if they give it, we can obtain it,” said Cmdr. Heath Sanders, the head of investigations at the Melbourne Police Department. “We’re not going to be walking down the street and asking a five-year-old to stick out his tongue. That’s just not reasonable. But’s let’s say a kid’s 15, 16 years old, we can ask for consent without the parents.”

In Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, those stopped for DUI or on the street for acting suspiciously may be asked for DNA. Director of Public Safety Frederick Harran credits the burgeoning DNA database Bensalem now shares with Bucks County’s 38 other police departments with cutting burglaries in the township by 42 percent in the first four years of the program. Plus, Bensalem pays for the testing — which is conducted by a leading private lab, Bode Cellmark Forensics — with drug forfeiture money, making it essentially free, Harran added.

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The five teenage boys were sitting in a parked car in a gated community in Melbourne, Florida when a police officer pulled up behind them. Officer Justin Valutsky closed one of the rear doors, which had been ajar, and told them to stay in the car. He peered into the drivers’ side window of the white Hyundai SUV and asked what the teens were doing there. It was a Saturday night in March 2015, and they told Valutsky they were visiting a friend for a sleepover.

Valutsky told them there had been a string of car break-ins recently in the area. Then, after questioning them some more, he made an unexpected demand: He asked which one of them wanted to give him a DNA sample.

After a long pause, Adam, a slight 15-year-old with curly hair and braces, said, “Okay, I guess I’ll do it.” Valutsky showed Adam how to rub a long cotton swab around the inside of his cheek, then gave him a consent form to sign and took his thumbprint. He sealed Adam’s swab in an envelope. Then he let the boys go. Telling the story later, Adam said “I thought it meant we had to” about the officer’s request.

Over the last decade, collecting DNA from people who are not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime has become an increasingly routine practice for police in smaller cities not only in Florida, but in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well.

While the largest cities typically operate public labs and feed DNA samples into the FBI’s national database, cities like Melbourne have assembled databases of their own, often in partnership with private labs that offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.

And to compile samples for comparison, some jurisdictions also have quietly begun asking people to turn over DNA voluntarily during traffic stops, or even during what amount to chance encounters with police. In Melbourne, riding a bike at night without two functioning lights can lead to DNA swab — even if the rider is a minor.

“In Florida law, basically, if we can ask consent, and if they give it, we can obtain it,” said Cmdr. Heath Sanders, the head of investigations at the Melbourne Police Department. “We’re not going to be walking down the street and asking a five-year-old to stick out his tongue. That’s just not reasonable. But’s let’s say a kid’s 15, 16 years old, we can ask for consent without the parents.”

In Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, those stopped for DUI or on the street for acting suspiciously may be asked for DNA. Director of Public Safety Frederick Harran credits the burgeoning DNA database Bensalem now shares with Bucks County’s 38 other police departments with cutting burglaries in the township by 42 percent in the first four years of the program. Plus, Bensalem pays for the testing — which is conducted by a leading private lab, Bode Cellmark Forensics — with drug forfeiture money, making it essentially free, Harran added.

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The five teenage boys were sitting in a parked car in a gated community in Melbourne, Florida when a police officer pulled up behind them. Officer Justin Valutsky closed one of the rear doors, which had been ajar, and told them to stay in the car. He peered into the drivers’ side window of the white Hyundai SUV and asked what the teens were doing there. It was a Saturday night in March 2015, and they told Valutsky they were visiting a friend for a sleepover.

Valutsky told them there had been a string of car break-ins recently in the area. Then, after questioning them some more, he made an unexpected demand: He asked which one of them wanted to give him a DNA sample.

After a long pause, Adam, a slight 15-year-old with curly hair and braces, said, “Okay, I guess I’ll do it.” Valutsky showed Adam how to rub a long cotton swab around the inside of his cheek, then gave him a consent form to sign and took his thumbprint. He sealed Adam’s swab in an envelope. Then he let the boys go. Telling the story later, Adam said “I thought it meant we had to” about the officer’s request.

Over the last decade, collecting DNA from people who are not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime has become an increasingly routine practice for police in smaller cities not only in Florida, but in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well.

While the largest cities typically operate public labs and feed DNA samples into the FBI’s national database, cities like Melbourne have assembled databases of their own, often in partnership with private labs that offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.

And to compile samples for comparison, some jurisdictions also have quietly begun asking people to turn over DNA voluntarily during traffic stops, or even during what amount to chance encounters with police. In Melbourne, riding a bike at night without two functioning lights can lead to DNA swab — even if the rider is a minor.

“In Florida law, basically, if we can ask consent, and if they give it, we can obtain it,” said Cmdr. Heath Sanders, the head of investigations at the Melbourne Police Department. “We’re not going to be walking down the street and asking a five-year-old to stick out his tongue. That’s just not reasonable. But’s let’s say a kid’s 15, 16 years old, we can ask for consent without the parents.”

In Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, those stopped for DUI or on the street for acting suspiciously may be asked for DNA. Director of Public Safety Frederick Harran credits the burgeoning DNA database Bensalem now shares with Bucks County’s 38 other police departments with cutting burglaries in the township by 42 percent in the first four years of the program. Plus, Bensalem pays for the testing — which is conducted by a leading private lab, Bode Cellmark Forensics — with drug forfeiture money, making it essentially free, Harran added.

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The five teenage boys were sitting in a parked car in a gated community in Melbourne, Florida when a police officer pulled up behind them. Officer Justin Valutsky closed one of the rear doors, which had been ajar, and told them to stay in the car. He peered into the drivers’ side window of the white Hyundai SUV and asked what the teens were doing there. It was a Saturday night in March 2015, and they told Valutsky they were visiting a friend for a sleepover.

Valutsky told them there had been a string of car break-ins recently in the area. Then, after questioning them some more, he made an unexpected demand: He asked which one of them wanted to give him a DNA sample.

After a long pause, Adam, a slight 15-year-old with curly hair and braces, said, “Okay, I guess I’ll do it.” Valutsky showed Adam how to rub a long cotton swab around the inside of his cheek, then gave him a consent form to sign and took his thumbprint. He sealed Adam’s swab in an envelope. Then he let the boys go. Telling the story later, Adam said “I thought it meant we had to” about the officer’s request.

Over the last decade, collecting DNA from people who are not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime has become an increasingly routine practice for police in smaller cities not only in Florida, but in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well.

While the largest cities typically operate public labs and feed DNA samples into the FBI’s national database, cities like Melbourne have assembled databases of their own, often in partnership with private labs that offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.

And to compile samples for comparison, some jurisdictions also have quietly begun asking people to turn over DNA voluntarily during traffic stops, or even during what amount to chance encounters with police. In Melbourne, riding a bike at night without two functioning lights can lead to DNA swab — even if the rider is a minor.

“In Florida law, basically, if we can ask consent, and if they give it, we can obtain it,” said Cmdr. Heath Sanders, the head of investigations at the Melbourne Police Department. “We’re not going to be walking down the street and asking a five-year-old to stick out his tongue. That’s just not reasonable. But’s let’s say a kid’s 15, 16 years old, we can ask for consent without the parents.”

In Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, those stopped for DUI or on the street for acting suspiciously may be asked for DNA. Director of Public Safety Frederick Harran credits the burgeoning DNA database Bensalem now shares with Bucks County’s 38 other police departments with cutting burglaries in the township by 42 percent in the first four years of the program. Plus, Bensalem pays for the testing — which is conducted by a leading private lab, Bode Cellmark Forensics — with drug forfeiture money, making it essentially free, Harran added.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below:

“The worst deal ever negotiated,” was President Donald Trump’s view of Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement: a deal that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. The agreement, signed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers, clumsily named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), made it much harder for Iran to build an atom bomb, at least for a while. But it has been on life support ever since Mr Trump declared a year ago that he was withdrawing from it. 

On May 8th Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, pushed it closer to death. Mr Rouhani said that Iran would stop complying with parts of the deal and warned that more breaches might follow. His announcement had an ominous backdrop. On May 5th America sent an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East in response to “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” of Iranian aggression. Two days later Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, unexpectedly turned up in Iraq, where America has long accused Iran of sponsoring attacks on American forces. The combination of a dissolving nuclear agreement and more sabre-rattling increases the risk that America and Iran will stumble into a war—whether by accident or design. 

For now, the nuclear deal is hanging on. Iran, said Mr Rouhani, would stop exporting enriched uranium once its stockpile reached 300kg and heavy water over 130 tonnes, thus breaching caps set by the agreement. That is worrying. Enriched uranium, if spun in centrifuges to higher levels of purity, can be used to power nuclear bombs. Heavy water is used in nuclear reactors that can produce plutonium, an alternative bomb fuel.

Mr Rouhani also gave the deal’s other signatories—Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union—60 days to work out how to relieve the pressure brought on by American sanctions, imposed by Mr Trump, which have crippled the Iranian economy. If they do not, Mr Rouhani is threatening to increase not just the volume of its enriched uranium, but also the purity, which is capped at 3.67%, far below the level of around 90% required to make a bomb. Were Iran to enrich some or all of its stockpile to 20%, that would halve the time needed to make the final leap to weapons-grade levels. He also said Iran might resume work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak that had been halted under the nuclear agreement.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below:

“The worst deal ever negotiated,” was President Donald Trump’s view of Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement: a deal that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. The agreement, signed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers, clumsily named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), made it much harder for Iran to build an atom bomb, at least for a while. But it has been on life support ever since Mr Trump declared a year ago that he was withdrawing from it. 

On May 8th Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, pushed it closer to death. Mr Rouhani said that Iran would stop complying with parts of the deal and warned that more breaches might follow. His announcement had an ominous backdrop. On May 5th America sent an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East in response to “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” of Iranian aggression. Two days later Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, unexpectedly turned up in Iraq, where America has long accused Iran of sponsoring attacks on American forces. The combination of a dissolving nuclear agreement and more sabre-rattling increases the risk that America and Iran will stumble into a war—whether by accident or design. 

For now, the nuclear deal is hanging on. Iran, said Mr Rouhani, would stop exporting enriched uranium once its stockpile reached 300kg and heavy water over 130 tonnes, thus breaching caps set by the agreement. That is worrying. Enriched uranium, if spun in centrifuges to higher levels of purity, can be used to power nuclear bombs. Heavy water is used in nuclear reactors that can produce plutonium, an alternative bomb fuel.

Mr Rouhani also gave the deal’s other signatories—Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union—60 days to work out how to relieve the pressure brought on by American sanctions, imposed by Mr Trump, which have crippled the Iranian economy. If they do not, Mr Rouhani is threatening to increase not just the volume of its enriched uranium, but also the purity, which is capped at 3.67%, far below the level of around 90% required to make a bomb. Were Iran to enrich some or all of its stockpile to 20%, that would halve the time needed to make the final leap to weapons-grade levels. He also said Iran might resume work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak that had been halted under the nuclear agreement.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below:

“The worst deal ever negotiated,” was President Donald Trump’s view of Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement: a deal that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. The agreement, signed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers, clumsily named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), made it much harder for Iran to build an atom bomb, at least for a while. But it has been on life support ever since Mr Trump declared a year ago that he was withdrawing from it. 

On May 8th Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, pushed it closer to death. Mr Rouhani said that Iran would stop complying with parts of the deal and warned that more breaches might follow. His announcement had an ominous backdrop. On May 5th America sent an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East in response to “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” of Iranian aggression. Two days later Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, unexpectedly turned up in Iraq, where America has long accused Iran of sponsoring attacks on American forces. The combination of a dissolving nuclear agreement and more sabre-rattling increases the risk that America and Iran will stumble into a war—whether by accident or design. 

For now, the nuclear deal is hanging on. Iran, said Mr Rouhani, would stop exporting enriched uranium once its stockpile reached 300kg and heavy water over 130 tonnes, thus breaching caps set by the agreement. That is worrying. Enriched uranium, if spun in centrifuges to higher levels of purity, can be used to power nuclear bombs. Heavy water is used in nuclear reactors that can produce plutonium, an alternative bomb fuel.

Mr Rouhani also gave the deal’s other signatories—Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union—60 days to work out how to relieve the pressure brought on by American sanctions, imposed by Mr Trump, which have crippled the Iranian economy. If they do not, Mr Rouhani is threatening to increase not just the volume of its enriched uranium, but also the purity, which is capped at 3.67%, far below the level of around 90% required to make a bomb. Were Iran to enrich some or all of its stockpile to 20%, that would halve the time needed to make the final leap to weapons-grade levels. He also said Iran might resume work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak that had been halted under the nuclear agreement.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below:

“The worst deal ever negotiated,” was President Donald Trump’s view of Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement: a deal that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. The agreement, signed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers, clumsily named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), made it much harder for Iran to build an atom bomb, at least for a while. But it has been on life support ever since Mr Trump declared a year ago that he was withdrawing from it. 

On May 8th Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, pushed it closer to death. Mr Rouhani said that Iran would stop complying with parts of the deal and warned that more breaches might follow. His announcement had an ominous backdrop. On May 5th America sent an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East in response to “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” of Iranian aggression. Two days later Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, unexpectedly turned up in Iraq, where America has long accused Iran of sponsoring attacks on American forces. The combination of a dissolving nuclear agreement and more sabre-rattling increases the risk that America and Iran will stumble into a war—whether by accident or design. 

For now, the nuclear deal is hanging on. Iran, said Mr Rouhani, would stop exporting enriched uranium once its stockpile reached 300kg and heavy water over 130 tonnes, thus breaching caps set by the agreement. That is worrying. Enriched uranium, if spun in centrifuges to higher levels of purity, can be used to power nuclear bombs. Heavy water is used in nuclear reactors that can produce plutonium, an alternative bomb fuel.

Mr Rouhani also gave the deal’s other signatories—Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union—60 days to work out how to relieve the pressure brought on by American sanctions, imposed by Mr Trump, which have crippled the Iranian economy. If they do not, Mr Rouhani is threatening to increase not just the volume of its enriched uranium, but also the purity, which is capped at 3.67%, far below the level of around 90% required to make a bomb. Were Iran to enrich some or all of its stockpile to 20%, that would halve the time needed to make the final leap to weapons-grade levels. He also said Iran might resume work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak that had been halted under the nuclear agreement.

Humans have probably always been surrounded by their kin-those to whom they have been related by blood or marriage. But the size, the composition, and the functions of their families and kinship groups have varied tremendously. People have lived not only in the .nuclear family., made up of just the parents and their offspring, which is standard in the West and has been found almost everywhere, they have lived in extended families and in formal clans; they have been .avunculocal.; they have been .ultrolateral., they have been conscious of themselves as heirs of lineages hundred of generations deep. However constructed, the traditional kinship group has usually provided those who live in it with security, identity, and indeed with their entire scheme of activities and beliefs. The nameless billions of hunter-gatherers who have lived and died over the past several million years have been embedded in kinship groups, and when people started to farm about ten thousand years ago, their universe remained centered on kinship. Now that there was a durable form of wealth which could be hoarded-grain.some families became more powerful than other; society became stratified, and genealogy became an important means of justifying and perpetuating status.

During the past few centuries, however, in part of the world-in Europe and the countries that have been developing along European lines-a process of fragmentation has been going on. The ties and the demands of kinship have been weakening, the family has been getting smaller and, some say, less influential, as the individual, with a new sense of autonomy and with new obligations to himself (or, especially in the last decade and a half, to herself),has come to the foreground. A radically different mental order-self-centered and traceable not to any single historical development as much as to the entire flow of Western history since at least the Renaissance has taken over. The political and economic effects of this rise in individual self-consciousness have been largely positive: civil rights are better protected and opportunities are greater in the richer, more dynamic countries of the West; but the psychological effects have been mixed , at best. Something has been lost; a warmth, a sanity, and a supportiveness that are apparent among people whose family networks are still intact. Such qualities can be found in most of the Third World and in rural pockets of the U.S., but in the main stream of post-industrial society the individual is increasingly left to himself, to find meaning, stability, and contentment however he can.

An indication of how far the disintegration of traditional kinship has advanced is that a surprising number of Americans are unable to name all four of their grandparents. Such people have usually grown up in step-families, which are dramatically on the rise. So is the single-parent family-the mother-child unit, which some anthropologists contend is the real nucleus of kinship, having already contracted to the relatively impoverished nuclear family, partly as an adaptation to industrialization kinship seems to be breaking down even further. With the divorce rate in America at about fifty percent and the remarriage rate at about seventy five, the traditional Judeo-Christian scheme of marriage to one person for life seems to be shading into a pattern of serial monogamy, into a sort of staggered polygamy, which some anthropologists, who believe that we aren.t naturally monogamous to begin with, see as .a return of normality.. Still other anthropologists explain what is happening somewhat differently; we are adopting delayed system of marriage, they say, with the length of the marriage chopped off at both ends. But many adults aren.t getting married at all; they are putting .self-fulfillment. before marriage and children and are having nothing further to do with kinship after leaving their parents. home: their family has become their work associate or their circle of best friends. This is the most distressing trend of all: the decline in the capacity of long-term intimate bonding.

Humans have probably always been surrounded by their kin-those to whom they have been related by blood or marriage. But the size, the composition, and the functions of their families and kinship groups have varied tremendously. People have lived not only in the .nuclear family., made up of just the parents and their offspring, which is standard in the West and has been found almost everywhere, they have lived in extended families and in formal clans; they have been .avunculocal.; they have been .ultrolateral., they have been conscious of themselves as heirs of lineages hundred of generations deep. However constructed, the traditional kinship group has usually provided those who live in it with security, identity, and indeed with their entire scheme of activities and beliefs. The nameless billions of hunter-gatherers who have lived and died over the past several million years have been embedded in kinship groups, and when people started to farm about ten thousand years ago, their universe remained centered on kinship. Now that there was a durable form of wealth which could be hoarded-grain.some families became more powerful than other; society became stratified, and genealogy became an important means of justifying and perpetuating status.

During the past few centuries, however, in part of the world-in Europe and the countries that have been developing along European lines-a process of fragmentation has been going on. The ties and the demands of kinship have been weakening, the family has been getting smaller and, some say, less influential, as the individual, with a new sense of autonomy and with new obligations to himself (or, especially in the last decade and a half, to herself),has come to the foreground. A radically different mental order-self-centered and traceable not to any single historical development as much as to the entire flow of Western history since at least the Renaissance has taken over. The political and economic effects of this rise in individual self-consciousness have been largely positive: civil rights are better protected and opportunities are greater in the richer, more dynamic countries of the West; but the psychological effects have been mixed , at best. Something has been lost; a warmth, a sanity, and a supportiveness that are apparent among people whose family networks are still intact. Such qualities can be found in most of the Third World and in rural pockets of the U.S., but in the main stream of post-industrial society the individual is increasingly left to himself, to find meaning, stability, and contentment however he can.

An indication of how far the disintegration of traditional kinship has advanced is that a surprising number of Americans are unable to name all four of their grandparents. Such people have usually grown up in step-families, which are dramatically on the rise. So is the single-parent family-the mother-child unit, which some anthropologists contend is the real nucleus of kinship, having already contracted to the relatively impoverished nuclear family, partly as an adaptation to industrialization kinship seems to be breaking down even further. With the divorce rate in America at about fifty percent and the remarriage rate at about seventy five, the traditional Judeo-Christian scheme of marriage to one person for life seems to be shading into a pattern of serial monogamy, into a sort of staggered polygamy, which some anthropologists, who believe that we aren.t naturally monogamous to begin with, see as .a return of normality.. Still other anthropologists explain what is happening somewhat differently; we are adopting delayed system of marriage, they say, with the length of the marriage chopped off at both ends. But many adults aren.t getting married at all; they are putting .self-fulfillment. before marriage and children and are having nothing further to do with kinship after leaving their parents. home: their family has become their work associate or their circle of best friends. This is the most distressing trend of all: the decline in the capacity of long-term intimate bonding.

Humans have probably always been surrounded by their kin-those to whom they have been related by blood or marriage. But the size, the composition, and the functions of their families and kinship groups have varied tremendously. People have lived not only in the .nuclear family., made up of just the parents and their offspring, which is standard in the West and has been found almost everywhere, they have lived in extended families and in formal clans; they have been .avunculocal.; they have been .ultrolateral., they have been conscious of themselves as heirs of lineages hundred of generations deep. However constructed, the traditional kinship group has usually provided those who live in it with security, identity, and indeed with their entire scheme of activities and beliefs. The nameless billions of hunter-gatherers who have lived and died over the past several million years have been embedded in kinship groups, and when people started to farm about ten thousand years ago, their universe remained centered on kinship. Now that there was a durable form of wealth which could be hoarded-grain.some families became more powerful than other; society became stratified, and genealogy became an important means of justifying and perpetuating status.

During the past few centuries, however, in part of the world-in Europe and the countries that have been developing along European lines-a process of fragmentation has been going on. The ties and the demands of kinship have been weakening, the family has been getting smaller and, some say, less influential, as the individual, with a new sense of autonomy and with new obligations to himself (or, especially in the last decade and a half, to herself),has come to the foreground. A radically different mental order-self-centered and traceable not to any single historical development as much as to the entire flow of Western history since at least the Renaissance has taken over. The political and economic effects of this rise in individual self-consciousness have been largely positive: civil rights are better protected and opportunities are greater in the richer, more dynamic countries of the West; but the psychological effects have been mixed , at best. Something has been lost; a warmth, a sanity, and a supportiveness that are apparent among people whose family networks are still intact. Such qualities can be found in most of the Third World and in rural pockets of the U.S., but in the main stream of post-industrial society the individual is increasingly left to himself, to find meaning, stability, and contentment however he can.

An indication of how far the disintegration of traditional kinship has advanced is that a surprising number of Americans are unable to name all four of their grandparents. Such people have usually grown up in step-families, which are dramatically on the rise. So is the single-parent family-the mother-child unit, which some anthropologists contend is the real nucleus of kinship, having already contracted to the relatively impoverished nuclear family, partly as an adaptation to industrialization kinship seems to be breaking down even further. With the divorce rate in America at about fifty percent and the remarriage rate at about seventy five, the traditional Judeo-Christian scheme of marriage to one person for life seems to be shading into a pattern of serial monogamy, into a sort of staggered polygamy, which some anthropologists, who believe that we aren.t naturally monogamous to begin with, see as .a return of normality.. Still other anthropologists explain what is happening somewhat differently; we are adopting delayed system of marriage, they say, with the length of the marriage chopped off at both ends. But many adults aren.t getting married at all; they are putting .self-fulfillment. before marriage and children and are having nothing further to do with kinship after leaving their parents. home: their family has become their work associate or their circle of best friends. This is the most distressing trend of all: the decline in the capacity of long-term intimate bonding.

Humans have probably always been surrounded by their kin-those to whom they have been related by blood or marriage. But the size, the composition, and the functions of their families and kinship groups have varied tremendously. People have lived not only in the .nuclear family., made up of just the parents and their offspring, which is standard in the West and has been found almost everywhere, they have lived in extended families and in formal clans; they have been .avunculocal.; they have been .ultrolateral., they have been conscious of themselves as heirs of lineages hundred of generations deep. However constructed, the traditional kinship group has usually provided those who live in it with security, identity, and indeed with their entire scheme of activities and beliefs. The nameless billions of hunter-gatherers who have lived and died over the past several million years have been embedded in kinship groups, and when people started to farm about ten thousand years ago, their universe remained centered on kinship. Now that there was a durable form of wealth which could be hoarded-grain.some families became more powerful than other; society became stratified, and genealogy became an important means of justifying and perpetuating status.

During the past few centuries, however, in part of the world-in Europe and the countries that have been developing along European lines-a process of fragmentation has been going on. The ties and the demands of kinship have been weakening, the family has been getting smaller and, some say, less influential, as the individual, with a new sense of autonomy and with new obligations to himself (or, especially in the last decade and a half, to herself),has come to the foreground. A radically different mental order-self-centered and traceable not to any single historical development as much as to the entire flow of Western history since at least the Renaissance has taken over. The political and economic effects of this rise in individual self-consciousness have been largely positive: civil rights are better protected and opportunities are greater in the richer, more dynamic countries of the West; but the psychological effects have been mixed , at best. Something has been lost; a warmth, a sanity, and a supportiveness that are apparent among people whose family networks are still intact. Such qualities can be found in most of the Third World and in rural pockets of the U.S., but in the main stream of post-industrial society the individual is increasingly left to himself, to find meaning, stability, and contentment however he can.

An indication of how far the disintegration of traditional kinship has advanced is that a surprising number of Americans are unable to name all four of their grandparents. Such people have usually grown up in step-families, which are dramatically on the rise. So is the single-parent family-the mother-child unit, which some anthropologists contend is the real nucleus of kinship, having already contracted to the relatively impoverished nuclear family, partly as an adaptation to industrialization kinship seems to be breaking down even further. With the divorce rate in America at about fifty percent and the remarriage rate at about seventy five, the traditional Judeo-Christian scheme of marriage to one person for life seems to be shading into a pattern of serial monogamy, into a sort of staggered polygamy, which some anthropologists, who believe that we aren.t naturally monogamous to begin with, see as .a return of normality.. Still other anthropologists explain what is happening somewhat differently; we are adopting delayed system of marriage, they say, with the length of the marriage chopped off at both ends. But many adults aren.t getting married at all; they are putting .self-fulfillment. before marriage and children and are having nothing further to do with kinship after leaving their parents. home: their family has become their work associate or their circle of best friends. This is the most distressing trend of all: the decline in the capacity of long-term intimate bonding.