TEST

Passage 1 : CAT Reading Comprehension

The first systems of writing developed and used by the Germanic peoples
were runic alphabets. The runes functioned as letters, but they were much
more than just letters in the sense in which we today understand the term.
Each rune was an ideographic or pictographic symbol of some
cosmological principle or power, and to write a rune was to invoke and
direct the force for which it stood. Indeed, in every Germanic language, the
word “rune” (from Proto-Germanic *runo) means both “letter” and “secret”
or “mystery,” and its original meaning, which likely predated the adoption of
the runic alphabet, may have been simply “(hushed) message.”

Each rune had a name that hinted at the philosophical and magical
significance of its visual form and the sound for which it stands, which was
almost always the first sound of the rune’s name. For example, the T-rune,
called *Tiwaz in the Proto-Germanic language, is named after the god
Tiwaz (known as Tyr in the Viking Age). Tiwaz was perceived to dwell
within the daytime sky, and, accordingly, the visual form of the T-rune is an
arrow pointed upward (which surely also hints at the god’s martial role).
The T-rune was often carved as a standalone ideograph, apart from the
writing of any particular word, as part of spells cast to ensure victory in
battle.

The runic alphabets are called “futharks” after the first six runes (Fehu,
Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raidho, Kaunan), in much the same way that the
word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Hebrew letters
(Aleph, Beth). There are three principal futharks: the 24-character Elder
Futhark, the first fully-formed runic alphabet, whose development had
begun by the first century CE and had been completed before the year 400;
the 16-character Younger Futhark, which began to diverge from the Elder
Futhark around the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 750 CE) and eventually
replaced that older alphabet in Scandinavia; and the 33-character Anglo-
Saxon Futhorc, which gradually altered and added to the Elder Futhark in
England. On some inscriptions, the twenty-four runes of the Elder Futhark
were divided into three ættir (Old Norse, “families”) of eight runes each, but
the significance of this division is unfortunately unknown.

Runes were traditionally carved onto stone, wood, bone, metal, or some
similarly hard surface rather than drawn with ink and pen on parchment.
This explains their sharp, angular form, which was well-suited to the
medium.
Much of our current knowledge of the meanings the ancient Germanic
peoples attributed to the runes comes from the three “Rune Poems,”
documents from Iceland, Norway, and England that provide a short stanza
about each rune in their respective futharks (the Younger Futhark is treated
in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems, while the Anglo-Saxon
Futhorc is discussed in the Old English Rune Poem).

While runologists argue over many of the details of the historical origins of
runic writing, there is widespread agreement on a general outline. The
runes are presumed to have been derived from one of the many Old Italic
alphabets in use among the Mediterranean peoples of the first century CE,
who lived to the south of the Germanic tribes. Earlier Germanic sacred
symbols, such as those preserved in northern European petroglyphs, were
also likely influential in the development of the script.

The earliest possibly runic inscription is found on the Meldorf brooch, which
was manufactured in the north of modern-day Germany around 50 CE. The
inscription is highly ambiguous, however, and scholars are divided over
whether its letters are runic or Roman. The earliest unambiguous runic
inscriptions are found on the Vimose comb from Vimose, Denmark and the
Øvre Stabu spearhead from southern Norway, both of which date to
approximately 160 CE. The earliest known carving of the entire futhark, in
order, is that on the Kylver stone from Gotland, Sweden, which dates to
roughly 400 CE.

The transmission of writing from southern Europe to northern Europe likely

took place via Germanic warbands, the dominant northern European
military institution of the period, who would have encountered Italic writing
firsthand during campaigns amongst their southerly neighbors. This
hypothesis is supported by the association that runes have always had with
the god Odin, who, in the Proto-Germanic period, under his original name
*Woðanaz, was the divine model of the human warband leader and the
invisible patron of the warband’s activities. The Roman historian Tacitus
tells us that Odin (“Mercury” in the interpretatio romana) was already
established as the dominant god in the pantheons of many of the Germanic
tribes by the first century.

From the perspective of the ancient Germanic peoples themselves,

however, the runes came from no source as mundane as an Old Italic
alphabet. The runes were never “invented,” but are instead eternal, pre-
existent forces that Odin himself discovered by undergoing a tremendous
ordeal.

1. The word “pantheon” in the passage refers to

 A. A temple of all the gods
B. All the gods collectively of a religion
C. A monument or building commemorating a nation's dead
heroes
D. A domed circular temple at Rome, erected a.d. 120–124 by
Hadrian

2. Which of the following statements is incorrect?

A. Unlike the Latin alphabet, which is an essentially utilitarian

script, the runes are symbols of some of the most powerful
forces in the cosmos
B. Runic writing was probably first used in southern Europe and
was carried north by Germanic tribes.
C. The word “rune” and its meaning was derived from the runic
alphabet.
D. The first runic alphabets date back to the 1st century CE.

3. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

a. Runic script was most likely derived from Old Italic script.
b. Runes were not used so much as a simple writing system,
but rather as magical signs to be used for charms.
c. In the Proto-Germanic period, the god Tiwaz was associated
with war, victory, marriage and the diurnal sky.
d. The knowledge of the meanings attributed to the runes of the
Younger Futhark is derived from the three Rune poems.
A. All the above
B. ii and iv
C. i, ii and iv
D. i and iii

4. Which of the following cannot be reasonably inferred with

regard to the beliefs of the Proto-Germanic people?
 A. Odin came upon the runes after going through a lot of
torment.
B. The name of a rune was almost always the first sound of a
God’s name
C. The cosmological power represented by a rune was invoked
by writing it.
D. Proto-German Gods were modeled on humans.

Passage 2 :
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true
for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency,
in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their
fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down
unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded
than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by
an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment
that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having
its genesis in a continuing need to atone. Expressions of such atonement
have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the
measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some
of its judges.

Let us look back to the ADM Jabalpur case. As a court of law, the Supreme
Court was called upon in the case to balance the interest of public order in
an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every
person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had
found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot
be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government
declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed,
though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by
the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however
reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a
bounty of the government. Given that the consequences of their error were
entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death
of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic
language used by the judges confirmed this impression.

Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the

independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of
quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to
perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment,
regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in
the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform
among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are
crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned.
But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the
Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is
equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit
is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of
technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that
the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for
other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose
chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a
particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned
diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be
believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well.
That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being
usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the
chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across
the judicial spectrum.

Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases

that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and
inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over
61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile
for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other
wings of government how to do so.

As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the

Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the
significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and
must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not
confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent
judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on
the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years
on is a different institution — it must be cognizant of its history but not at
the cost of being blind to its present.

1. Which of the following is a suitable title for the passage?

A. An Atonement Gone Too Far

B. Sanctimony from a Ruined Pedestal
 C. The ADM Jabalpur's Case: The Supreme Court's Darkest
Hour
D. Overcompensating for Past Mistakes

2. The author says that the Supreme Court was “more executive-
minded than the executive” during the Emergency. Which of
the following options captures the essence of what the writer
means by the phrase: 'more “executive-minded than the
executive”'?

A. The Supreme Court abdicated its independence to an

authoritarian government by embracing its perspective.
B. The Supreme Court was more emphatic than the
Government about exercising executive power under the
MISA.
C. The Supreme Court reflected the unconscionable actions
taken by the government by upholding its laws.
D. The Supreme Court wanted to curry favor with the
government through its deferential decisions during
Emergency.

3. Which of the following cannot be reasonably inferred from the

passage?

A. The Supreme Court was complicit in curbing judicial

independence during the Emergency.
B. Public interest litigations have, post-Emergency, led to the
judiciary overreaching into the realm of legislature.
C. The Indian Judiciary ought not indulge in general supervisory
jurisdiction to correct actions and policies of government.
D. The Indian judiciary must be equipped with technical
competence and institutional capacity to ensure compliance
to orders passed in relation to public interest litigations.
 4. The word “egregious” in the passage is farthest in meaning to :

A. outrageous
B. flagitious
C. distinguished
D. arrant

5. Which of the following is the author least likely to agree with?

A. The rise in judicial activism is in danger making the Supreme

Court diffuse and ineffective, encroaching into the functions
of government.
B. Where the Supreme Court is only moved for better
governance and administration, which does not involve the
exercise of any proper judicial function, it should refrain from
acting.
C. Adoption, police reform and environment issues are the remit
of the judiciary.
D. The Indian judicial system needs to focus on clearing the
massive backlog of cases to re-establish its credibility.

Passage 3 :
Sound the alarm! The kingdom of letters has admitted Trojan horses:
James Frey, JT Leroy, Misha Defonseca, Margaret B. Jones, Herman
Rosenblat, and now Matt McCarthy, portions of whose baseball memoir,
the New York Times reports, are “incorrect, embellished or impossible.”
The watchmen have let down their guards.

I write: Hold your horses. In the rush to diagnose these fake memoirs as
symptoms of a diseased culture, we have failed to consider an equally
plausible alternative. What if the exposure of fake memoirists is not due to
an increased frequency of lying, but rather to our increased ability to root
out liars and hold them accountable for their verisimilitudes? Perhaps the
outings of these hoaxes mark not a blurring of the line between fact and
fiction, but a further demarcation.
Indeed, it may be helpful to remember that the novel was born from exactly
such confusion. One of the standards by which the earliest novels were
judged was their ability to convince readers that their narratives were, in
fact, real. Authors deployed several tricks to scaffold the illusion. 'Robinson
Crusoe' was “written by himself,” according to the novel’s title page, which
omitted Daniel Defoe’s name. Samuel Richardson’s novel 'Pamela', an
attempt to instruct in good conduct through entertainment, was written as a
series of letters penned by the heroine. In his preface to the novel, which
excluded his name altogether, Richardson included several real letters from
friends to whom he had shown the manuscript, but he changed the
salutation from “Dear Author” to “Dear Editor” and even, writing under the
guise of “editor,” praised “Pamela’s” letters. However, this was a lie, but not
a hoax. Richardson wanted his novels to be read with "Historical Faith",
since they contained, he believed, "the truth of the possible- the truth of
human nature". Richardson’s authorship was revealed shortly after
Pamela’s publication, but rather than serving time on Oprah’s couch, he
was hailed as an innovator of the novelistic form.

Whereas novels were unashamedly fake memoirs at their conception, our

recent hoaxes suggest that the line between the genres, once drawn,
cannot easily be erased. This is in no small part due to the Internet’s
surveillance. All along, historians had raised questions about Misha
Defonseca, who claimed to have survived the Holocaust by living with a
pack of wolves, but the engine of her downfall was her former publisher
Jane Daniel’s blog. James Frey’s sine qua non of the fudged-memoir
genre, A Million Little Pieces, was debunked by the website The Smoking
Gun, which posted his actual arrest records and compared them to Frey’s
embellished retellings. Deborah Lipstadt used her blog to gather evidence
against Herman Rosenblat’s memoir.

If anything, you could argue that the fact-checkers are doing too good a
job. There seems to be some risk that, in attempting to hold memoirs to
journalistic standards of factuality, the watchdogs miss the forest for the
trees, fixating on minor details in books whose general pictures are correct.
The New York Times includes in its dossier against Matt McCarthy
disputations by teammates who McCarthy alleges threatened children and
made fun of Hispanics, as though their denials of having said such self-
incriminating things were more trustworthy than McCarthy’s accusations.
When Jose Canseco published his baseball memoirs Juiced and
Vindicated, reviewers caviled over minor details and unsubstantiated
claims, including that Alex Rodriguez had used steroids. Recent events
have proven the gist of Canseco’s memoirs largely correct.
Indeed, it seems unlikely that, say, every claim in Casanova’s The Story of
My Life would hold up to such scrutiny. And yet, if we knew this were the
case, would we excise it from the canon? Writers’ enormous talents can
sometimes render moot questions of their works’ factuality; our fraudsters,
meanwhile, attempted to compensate for their meager talents by actually
inhabiting their bloated fictions. They suffer not an excess of imagination,
which can illuminate even the most mundane experiences, but a retreat
from it. And yet simply because they lost their handles on the truth does not
mean that the culture also has. Maybe the symptom of our age is not the
fake memoirists themselves, but the catching of fake memoirists. In which
case: Sound the church bells! The traitors are routed! The watchmen won!

1. Which of the following is a suitable title for the passage?

A. How to write a memoir

B. The age of literary fraud
C. Who is afraid of fake memoirists
D. Writing in the age of the internet

2. Which of the following is the author unlikely to agree with?

A. There isn’t more literary fraud in our age. More fraud is

coming to light due to the Internet’s surveillance.
B. The line dividing novels and fake memoirs was never clear.
C. As long as the main or essential part of a memoir is correct, it
does not matter if lesser details do not stand up to
verification.
D. There exists now a widespread, diseased culture of literary
fraud.

3. With regard to the novel ‘Pamela’, the author states that

Richardson’s artifice “ was a lie, but not a hoax”. What does he
mean?

A. It was an unintentional deception that contained the truth of

human nature and was hence acceptable to readers.
 B. It was just a ploy to capture the imagination of the readers
with the truth of the possible.
C. It was a deception perpetrated simply to make money.
D. It was a mere prank, and did not generate public interest.

4. The word ‘verisimilitude’ in the passage is farthest in meaning

to

A. absurdity
B. plausibility
C. authenticity
D. credibleness