Directions for questions 21 to 24: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. Ghosts are not renowned for their sense of humour. As Charles Lamb (he of the undeconstructed tales from Shakespeare) put it; 'Can a ghost laugh, or shake his gaunt sides, when you are pleasant with him?' But the ghost of the theorist of farcical returns might well be something of an exception. At any rate, one can't help thinking that, were the personal spirit of Marx to be in any position to take note of his conjurings in the pages of Specters of Marx, it might be a little tickled in its gaunt ribs, inclined even to give vent to some hollow-sounding cries of mirth. For there is surely an element of irony about this supposedly overdue encounter between Derrida and Marx: namely, that it may be the cause - and this conference is itself confirming of the suspicion - of a certain rehabilitation of Marx. I say 'certain' because we must add 'in the academy', or 'in philosophy'. The rehabilitation may prove some-what local and limited, but nonetheless its peculiarity should not pass entirely without comment. That the deconstructive turn in philosophy which looked to be exorcizing Marx, and which was certainly interpreted by many as wanting to do so, may be that which conjures him forth again and puts him back into philosophical vogue; that it may only be through the authorization of Derrida that Marx may return from the shadowy wings of the academy to centre stage and even be allowed a speaking part: this is an odd turnabout, maybe even a bit spooky, certainly a funny business. Derrida is right that there are several spirits of Marx, including some we may want finally to put to rest. But one which we should surely continue to summon is that which invites philosophy to be sensitive to its context and effects, and to see the humour in some of its own inversions. Regrettably, Derrida's return to Marx is too little haunted by this spirit of self-appraisal. But how far, in any case, is this coming back to Marx a genuinely new event, how far a revenant of Derrida's earlier deferrings of the engagement with the ethical and the political - which have always taken the form, in fact, not so much of a postponement or a confident 'don't call me, I'll call you', but of what one might call a politely tentative gesturing towards a possible handshake with the nettle. Three aspects of Specters of Marx seem noteworthy here. In the first place, it offers a definite statement of political affiliation. Derrida makes plain his distance from the celebrants of the demise of Marxism and from all those who would echo Fukuyama's triumphalist prophecies about the 'end of history'. He is very ready to acknowledge that if we measure the out-of-jointness of our times by the degree of human misery already occurred or in the offing, then our times are indeed askew. In his ten indictments of global capitalism, he also makes it very clear that he subscribes to a broadly Marxist view of the sources of the disorder.
21. The word closest to the contextual meaning of 'indictments' in the passage is:
(a) Commandments
(b) Pronouncements
(c) Accusations
(d) Postulates
22. How does the author view Derrida's earlier engagements with the ethical and political?
(a) A possible collaboration with a wise group.
(b) An assertive and overt expression of postponement.
(c) An unpleasant collaboration, which can result in pain.
(d) A collaboration done with some reluctance but which can prove to be highly profitable.
23. The author would agree with which of the following?
(a) Despite opposing some Marxist ideas, Derrida's writings hint at a revival of Marx.
(b) These days we experience an equal amount of misery as we did in the past. (c) The roots of our present disorder can be traced back reasonably accurately by Marxist views.
(d) Derrida has never shown any indication in the past that he would come back to conform with some of Marx's views.
24. Where could the passage have been taken from?
(a) A book review of Specters of Marx
(b) A newspaper article highlighting Derrida's best work
(c) A speech or presentation on Specters of Marx
(d) A book on political ideologies
Directions for questions 25 to 27: The passage given below is followed by a set of three questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. Allergy sufferers like to claim — in between sniffles — that each spring's allergy season is worse than the last. But this year, they might actually be right. Thanks to an unusually cold and snowy winter, followed by an early and warm spring, pollen counts are through the roof in much of the U.S., especially in the Southeast, which is already home to some of the most allergenic cities in the country. A pollen count — the number of grains of pollen in a cubic meter of air — of 120 is considered high, but in Atlanta last week the number hit 5,733, the second highest level ever recorded in the city. The bad news is that in a warmer world, allergies are likely to get worse — and that's going to cost sufferers and the rest of us. A new report released on Wednesday by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) found that global warming will likely increase pollen counts in the heavily populated eastern section of the country and that the effect of climate change could push the economic cost of allergies and asthma well above the current $32 billion price tag. "The latest climate science makes it clear that allergies could get much worse," says Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist at NWF and the author of the report. "I really think this should be a wake-up call." Here's how it works: higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere generally speed plant growth, while warmer temperatures mean that spring — and with it, allergy season — arrives earlier. Spring-like conditions in the East are already arriving on average 14 days earlier than just 20 years ago Pollen from ragweed, which triggers most cases of spring hay fever, is projected to increase up to 100% between now and 2085 if fossil-fuel emissions continue to rise unabated. And more CO2 could make the ragweed pollen that exists more potent: if CO2 concentrations rise from current levels (385 parts per million) to 600 parts p.p.m., which could happen as soon as mid-century, ragweed pollen could become up to 70% more allergenic. An earlier, longer spring will just give ragweed more time to grow and give off pollen. As the climate warms, it is likely to favor trees that give off pollen — like oaks and hickories — over pines, spruces and fir trees, which don't. By 2100, once relatively cool states in the Northeast — including Vermont, New Hampshire and New York — could have the sort of highly allergenic trees now seen in the hotter Southeast, as species migrate north to adjust to the heat.
There are ways to fight rising allergies even in a warmer world: for example, by replacing trees that emit high levels of pollen in densely populated areas — like the Norway maples found on New York City streets — with species that produce less, like mountain ash or golden rain. "We can get better allergy management and help people reduce their exposure to triggers," says Mike Triangle of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. But absent a concerted effort to reduce carbon emissions, get ready for a sniffly future.
25. Why does the author use the word 'sniffle' and its adjective 'sniffly' in the passage?
(a) To vividly describe the act of sneezing- the most common effect of allergens on people.
(b) To introduce an element of humour in an otherwise serious discussion.
(c) To draw the readers' attention to what allergies can reduce people to.
(d) To begin the passage on a lighter vein as he is going to ring alarm bells later on.
26. Which of the following, if true, would have the most mitigating effect on the author's argument on the effect of climate change on allergies/allergic people?
(a) Climate change is always associated with widespread deforestation that cuts across all plant species.
(b) People suffering from allergies generally stay indoors in the allergy season. (c) The government is ready with a contingency plan to tackle allergy related problems among the masses.
(d) There is enough stock of medicines to alleviate allergy related problems in the masses.
27. Which of the following is true about allergenic trees?
(a) Mountain Ash belongs to this category of trees.
(b) Most of them cause hay fever.
(c) They generally grow in populated areas.
(d) They are more suited to warmer climates.
Directions for questions 28 to 31: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well – let it get worse! I have been going on like that for a long time – twenty years. Now I am forty. I used to be in the government service, but am no longer. I was a spiteful official. I was rude and took pleasure in being so. I did not take bribes, you see, so I was bound to find a recompense in that, at least. (A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. I wrote it thinking it would sound very witty; but now that I have seen myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way, I will not scratch it out on purpose!)
When petitioners used to come for information to the table at which I sat, I used to grind my teeth at them, and felt intense enjoyment when I succeeded in making anybody unhappy. I almost did succeed. For the most part they were all timid people – of course, they were petitioners. But of the uppish ones there was one officer in particular I could not endure. He simply would not be humble, and clanked his sword in a disgusting way. I carried on a feud with him for eighteen months over that sword. At last I got the better of him. He left off clanking it. That happened in my youth, though. But do you know, gentlemen, what was the chief point about my spite? Why, the whole point, the real sting of it lay in the fact that continually, even in the moment of the acutest spleen, I was inwardly conscious with shame that I was not only not a spiteful but not even an embittered man, that I was simply scaring sparrows at random and amusing myself by it. I might foam at the mouth, but bring me a doll to play with, give me a cup of tea with sugar in it, and maybe I should be appeased. I might even be genuinely touched, though probably I should grind my teeth at myself afterwards and lie awake at night with shame for months after. That was my way. I was lying when I said just now that I was a spiteful official. I was lying from spite. I was simply amusing myself with the petitioners and with the officer, and in reality I never could become spiteful. I was conscious every moment in myself of many, very many elements absolutely opposite to that. I felt them positively swarming in me, these opposite elements. I knew that they had been swarming in me all my life and craving some outlet from me, but I would not let them, would not let them, purposely would not let them come out. They tormented me till I was ashamed: they drove me to convulsions and – sickened me, at last, how they sickened me! Now, are not you fancying, gentlemen, that I am expressing remorse for something now, that I am asking your forgiveness for something? I am sure you are fancying that ... However, I assure you I do not care if you are. ... It was not only that I could not become spiteful, I did not know how to become anything; neither spiteful nor kind, neither a rascal nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. Now, I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything. Yes, a man in the nineteenth century must and morally ought to be pre-eminently a characterless creature; a man of character, an active man is pre-eminently a limited creature. That is my conviction of forty years.
28. According to author what was the real reason for his ill treatment of petitioners?
(a) He would get sadistic pleasure out of troubling timid people like them.
(b) He wanted to make them angry in order to get them to fight with him.
(c) He was humoring himself without bearing a grudge against anyone.
(d) He wants to assert his power and make them feel helpless.
29. The phrase "pay out" in the passage best refers to:
(a) Insult
(b) Pay
(c) Harm
(d) Compensate
30. According to the passage which of the following conclusions about the protagonist would be incorrect?
(a) He lived during the 1800s.
(b) He works as a Government official.
(c) He is superstitious despite being well educated.
(d) He has been ill for twenty years.
31. The tone of the author can be best described as:
(a) Frivolous (b) Invective (c) Malicious (d) Derisive
No comments:
Post a Comment